1

--------------------------------------------------x

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL OCEAN PLANNING,

Inaugural Regional Planning Body (RPB) Meeting

--------------------------------------------------x

September 24, 2013 10:30 a.m.

Held at: Wilson Hall Auditorium Monmouth University 400 Cedar Avenue West Long Branch, New Jersey 07764

JOSEPH ALBANESE & ASSOCIATES Certified Shorthand Reporters 250 Washington Street, Suite A Toms River, New Jersey 08754 (732) 244-6100 reporter@albaneseassoc.com

2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2

3 FACILITATOR:LAURA CANTRAL,Meridian Institute

4 CO-LEADS:

5GWYNNE SCHULTZ,

Maryland, MARCO6

7 MAUREEN BORNHOLDT Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

8GERROD SMITH,

9 C.F.O. Shinnecock Indian Nation

10

11 PANEL MEMBERS:

12 SARAH COOKSEY, Delaware, MARCO

13 MARTY ROSEN, New Jersey, MARCO

14 JOSE ATANGAN, Joint Chiefs of Staff

15 GREG CAPOBIANCO, New York, MARCO

16 JOHN WALTERS, U.S. Coast Guard

17 PEDRO RAMOS, Acting State Conservationists, USDA

18 ANDY ZEMBA, Pennsylvania

19 L. FRANK MACH, U.S. Department of Transportation

Maritime Administration 20 21 DOUGLAS PABST, E.P.A.

22 TOM BIGFORD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

23 LAURA McKAY, Virginia, MARCO

24

25 NOTE TAKER: INGRID IRIGOYEN, Meridian Institute

3

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2

3 PANEL MEMBERS:

4 KAREN CHYTALO, Assistant Bureau Chief Maritime Resources, New York State

5 Department of Environmental Conservation

6 DAVID NOBLE, Department of the Navy

7

8PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGES

9 --------------- -----

10 MORGAN GOPNIK 144 234

11 ALI CHASE 148

12 236

13 BRENT GREENFEIELD 151 238

14 ARLO HEMPHILL 155

15 MATT GOVE 158

16 242

17 CINDY ZIPF 160 244

18 GREG DiDOMENICO 165

19 253

20 DOUG PHEISTER 168

21 NICK NAPOLI 205

22 RON RAPP 248

23 JOHN WILLIAMSON 251

24 MARGO PELLIGRINO 255

25

4

1 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. Are we ready

2 to get the party started?

3 Welcome everyone, members of the

4 Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Planning

5 body, and those of you joining for the

6 first in-person meeting, a business

7 meeting to be happening over the course

8 of today and tomorrow. I'll tell you a

9 lot more about our plans together in a

10 moment, but on behalf of the RPB, we'll

11 welcome you all in joining us for this

12 kickoff discussion.

13 The RPB has been having working

14 sessions via conference calls and has

15 conducted a webinar to provide status

16 updates to those of you with us and

17 others who are interested in its

18 progress, but this really is the

19 jumping-off point where there is an

20 opportunity to be around the table

21 together and deliberating and making some

22 decisions about how to proceed.

23 I'm Laura Cantral with Meridian

24 Institute and will be instituting the

25 dialogue over the course of today and

5

1 tomorrow, and also we would very much

2 like to thank our friends at Monmouth

3 University for their hospitality and

4 hosting us here for this meeting in this

5 beautiful and inspiring space.

6 So, I'll have a few things to say

7 about the agenda in a moment, but before

8 doing that, I would like to ask Gerrod

9 Smith with the Shinnecock Indian Nation

10 to honor our proceedings by starting us

11 off with a tribal blessing.

12 MR. SMITH: Thank you.

13 Let us thank the creator, whomever

14 you believe this one to be, for bringing

15 us all here together for common cause to

16 help manage our oceans in a better way,

17 and there are many stakeholders here with

18 many interests and many concerns and let

19 us continue to create dialogue and offer

20 suggestions as to how to manage our

21 oceans better to bring back that balance.

22 By coming together and working

23 collectively we can achieve this goal.

24 My elders once told me that

25 sometimes it is good to close your eyes

6

1 and close your mouth and just listen.

2 You can learn lots. So, as we discuss

3 and listen and move forward together, we

4 say "Ma-Ma." Let's move together. Let's

5 move forward together and let us keep in

6 mind that this is for many generations.

7 As one of the presidents once said, we do

8 these things not because they are easy,

9 but because they are hard, and so we have

10 lots of work ahead of us, but we are off

11 to a good start. "Tap-Bu-Mat." Thank

12 you.

13 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. Inspiring

14 wisdom.

15 We were talking over breakfast

16 about Roddy's heritage and understanding

17 a lot about the past and how interesting

18 to learn and how important it is to know

19 that and we also reflected that those of

20 you -- part of this process are taking

21 that into the future and that is

22 reflected in your blessing and in your

23 opening remarks. So, thank you very

24 much.

25 So, let me say a few things about

7

1 the agenda, and those of you who are with

2 the RPB, should have gotten an agenda

3 posted on the website, so you -- maybe

4 you took a look, and we also have some

5 copies here at the front desk, and for

6 RPB members. You should have your agenda

7 in front of you at tab one. And I don't

8 want to bore you all with too much detail

9 about the agenda, but I want to point out

10 some things I think are important for us

11 to all keep in mind.

12 First of all, to start by pointing

13 you to the objectives and what we hope to

14 accomplish over the course of this

15 meeting. We would like to determine a

16 general five-years' timeline for the

17 regional ocean planning process and

18 associated products that will be part of

19 that timeline. We'll present a proposal

20 and have some discussion and see what

21 you're thinking is how to further develop

22 that or what you want to do in terms of

23 setting some expectations for timing in

24 place.

25 We also want to have a good

8

1 discussion around the approach process,

2 again timeline-wise to engage the public

3 around the development of ocean planning

4 goals, associated objectives and

5 geographic scope of work for the

6 geographic focus for the planning work.

7 We'll be discussing and presenting

8 some preliminary thinking that's been

9 done by a number of folks on the RPB, and

10 the notion for this meeting is to have

11 some good discussion around that. This

12 is not about making decisions about

13 goals, this is about starting the process

14 of balancing the goals and, most

15 importantly, starting the process of

16 engaging all of you who are here today in

17 the process of further developing those

18 goals and related objectives.

19 Very much related to what I just

20 said is the mechanics for engaging

21 stakeholders, this RPB is very committed

22 to finding as many mechanisms for

23 engaging the members of the public in

24 this region and all of the sectors and

25 interests people who live here and work

9

1 here and care about these resources, and

2 we'll be talking about some ideas how

3 we'd do that as the process moves forward

4 from the first meeting, and we've got to

5 do some business and talk about a charter

6 for the regional planning body.

7 There is a draft charter that is

8 under development. There is still some

9 outstanding details you all need to

10 discuss and figure out as we walk away

11 from this meeting what is going to be the

12 timeline for finalizing that charter

13 having all of you view as members prepare

14 to sign the charter and formalize that.

15 There are related operational and

16 administrative considerations that we'll

17 need to discuss that will be part of our

18 day, too, to take up some of those

19 matters.

20 We'll also be spending time talking

21 about the use of the MARCO, Mid-Atlantic

22 Regional Council on the Ocean. It's an

23 important tool to support data and

24 information needs for regional planning

25 and also how to move forward and design

10

1 the next steps related to conducting a

2 regional ocean assessment, which is an

3 important early step in any planning

4 process as you've got to assess what

5 you've got before you can plan for where

6 you want to go.

7 So, in outlining those objectives,

8 you'll hear me say this more than once,

9 but to start now, an important

10 perspective or context to add about this

11 meeting, as the first meeting that all of

12 you as RPB members have to be together,

13 have discussions to present the early

14 thinking that has happened over the

15 course of the summer, have good dialogue

16 around the -- identify some next steps,

17 note some good ideas and make some

18 decisions about how to take the next set

19 of steps. So, just to keep that in mind

20 and in perspective -- as we go into our

21 different perspectives is important to

22 keep in mind.

23 We are going to be spending the

24 morning with welcoming remarks, some

25 introductions to make sure you all know

11

1 who is here at the table and who they

2 represent, and then we are going to have

3 some discussion around, first of all,

4 overview of the activities to date. Over

5 the course of the summer, some of these

6 things already have been referred to and

7 in particular have some RPB discussion

8 around two topics that are going to be

9 fundamental and foundational to the work,

10 and one of those is this timeline, and I

11 already referred to the five-years'

12 timeline and why it's important to talk

13 about that. Also, to discuss the

14 relationship between MARCO and the RPB as

15 the process moves forward, and MARCO has

16 some ideas to present to the RPB about

17 that.

18 At that point, we'll break for

19 lunch, and when we come back in the

20 afternoon, we'll spend the remainder of

21 the day talking about two important

22 topics, the process for setting goals and

23 objectives. Again, I just referred to

24 that as one of our meeting objectives and

25 also ideas for engaging stakeholders.

12

1 I think at this point what I would

2 like to do is point out that the RPB

3 decided to structure this agenda and

4 sequence it in a way to enable those of

5 you that may have ideas they are going to

6 be discussing, to have an opportunity to

7 speak to the RPB about those ideas.

8 So, I just want to point you to the

9 agenda and make reference to the sequence

10 that we've designed here. So, for

11 example, starting at one o'clock, after

12 lunch when we resume discussion about

13 regional planning goals and the related

14 topic of geographic focus for ocean

15 planning, we are going to present some

16 information, we'll have some initial

17 dialogue among RPB members, and then

18 we'll pause for public comment.

19 I'm going to talk about the

20 mechanics of signing up for public

21 comment, and if you want to cover public

22 comment, if you choose to do so, the

23 point is there will be some discussion

24 about a topic, we'll pause for public

25 comment, and resume the discussion, and

13

1 that gives an opportunity for anything

2 that members have heard from the public

3 related to the discussion, to roll that

4 back into the discussion. We'll wrap it

5 up and move to the next topic. That's

6 the pattern of how the agenda is designed

7 starting in the afternoon, topic A,

8 pause, public comment, resume topic A, B

9 and so on.

10 With regard to those public comment

11 sessions, we are hopeful that you -- if

12 you have a thought that you want to share

13 with the RPB, you'll tailor when you

14 offer that thought to the topic that is

15 under discussion. But it's -- there is

16 no rule about that, so you are free to

17 offer any question or comment on your

18 mind you want to share with the RPB in

19 any of these sessions, but we are hoping

20 that this kind of lather, rinse, repeat

21 works for you as well as for the RPB.

22 So, bear with me. I know this is a

23 lot of information, I'm almost done. I

24 promise.

25 We'll go to about 6 p.m. this

14

1 evening, and upon adjourning the formal

2 part of the session, the RPB is inviting

3 you to join them for an informal

4 opportunity for dialogue in a more

5 interactive fashion than we can

6 accommodate during this part of the

7 meeting.

8 So upstairs and down the hall there

9 will be signs that will point you to the

10 location. That will be an hour, from

11 6:30 to 7:30, with some refreshments and

12 discussion with members of the RPB. It's

13 really intended to be an informal

14 opportunity. There will be a little bit

15 of structure to help focus around some

16 particular questions or topics related to

17 the ocean planning process, but it will

18 be an opportunity for exchange.

19 We will resume tomorrow morning at

20 9:30, come back to the discussion about

21 stakeholder engagement, and as I said,

22 take up the matters related to data and

23 information and operational

24 considerations, including the chart.

25 So, with regard to public comment,

15

1 if you would like to offer a public

2 comment during any of the sessions that

3 we have designated on the agenda, you can

4 sign up. There will be instructions

5 provided to you outside at the

6 registration table depending how many

7 people sign up for any given session.

8 We'll do the math and figure out how much

9 time you have. It will be between two

10 and three minutes each, and I think I've

11 said everything I need to say about

12 public comment, as well as the informal

13 session that's going to happen later this

14 evening.

15 So, just a couple of other sort of

16 housekeeping things that I want to point

17 out. We hope that you are aware that the

18 meeting materials were posted on the

19 RPB's website in advance. This was to

20 give you all an opportunity to see the

21 materials, you were invited to comment on

22 the draft documents that were posted as

23 part of the reading materials. We did

24 get some comments that we are -- we had

25 in mind has been brought to the attention

16

1 of all of the RPB members, and we can

2 invoke as the discussion about different

3 aspects of our agenda moves forward.

4 Furthermore, after this meeting, a

5 full meeting transcript will be posted on

6 the website, along with all of the

7 meeting materials, the slides we'll be

8 referring to today, and we also intend to

9 post a participant listing, including all

10 of the public participants who are

11 attending this meeting.

12 If you have concerns and for some

13 reason do not want your name to be part

14 of that list, we ask you just let us know

15 at the front desk so your name won't

16 appear, and as we move forward with the

17 web interface and aspects of the RPB's

18 work and our dialogue and engagement

19 through that platform, we've got some

20 things we still have to iron out

21 regarding postings, things that may be

22 submitted to us -- submitted to us that

23 have name and contact information and

24 personal information. We'll have to work

25 that out, but the idea you'll hear more

17

1 about is that the RPB wants to look for

2 as many opportunities to engage you and

3 be able to identify you and follow up

4 with you as possible. I hope you'll take

5 that in the spirit it's intended.

6 Okay. So guess what? I think

7 that's it for now for me.

8 Actually, one -- a couple other

9 mechanics. So those of you at the table,

10 microphones, you press the little mute

11 button when you want to turn it on. The

12 red light is on, that means I'm on.

13 If -- you can stay on when you don't have

14 something to say, just to keep that noise

15 at a minimum. If a lot of you start

16 turning the microphone on, I can turn you

17 all off. Be aware.

18 Also, let's institute protocol.

19 Once we open up for discussion, you want

20 to get in the queue, you have something

21 to say, put your name tent up, I'll track

22 and call on you in the order I see the

23 tents going up. If you have something

24 you are dying to say, let me know, I'll

25 let you bump in the queue, but that's the

18

1 way we'll manage the discussion, and we

2 want this to be organic engaging and for

3 you all to be contributing and

4 participating in the discussion.

5 All right. So, at this point I

6 would like to introduce Tony McDonald,

7 our host -- one of our hosts here at

8 Monmouth, director of the Urban Coast

9 Institute at Monmouth University known to

10 many of us. Tony, say a few words.

11 MR. McDONALD: Thank you, Laura,

12 and everybody for coming today. This

13 is -- I'm director of the Urban Coast

14 Institute at Monmouth University, and

15 many of you in the room know I have a

16 checkered history with these issues

17 working on them for many years. It's

18 exciting for me to get to that point. I

19 really welcome you on behalf of

20 Monmouth -- from N.J. DEP who could not

21 be here and wanted to express her welcome

22 to New Jersey.

23 We are excited. We did all of the

24 murals in a nautical theme. If you knew

25 how much we care about the issues, it's

19

1 important to us, and this room is kind of

2 your early -- that was a private home,

3 this was actually an early day media

4 room. They rent puppet shows behind

5 curtain. They rent puppet shows before

6 the iPads and iPhones. So, thank you,

7 and we are happy we can share it with

8 you.

9 I want to thank the RPB colleagues

10 for all of the work I know that have gone

11 into planning the meeting. I know it's

12 hard and there is a lot of work into

13 making this happen, as Laura was

14 explaining, but for all of the work you

15 are permitted to lying ahead we are

16 excited about the level of commitment

17 coming to Monmouth and contributing your

18 time to this effort.

19 Now, at this time it's particularly

20 difficult time to commit that who the

21 heck knows what's going on in Congress

22 right now. Hopefully you'll be able to

23 get home after this. It's fitting and

24 everybody in the audience knows you are

25 coming to New Jersey and focusing on the

20

1 Mid-Atlantic, we are three-quarters of a

2 mile and make sure you take that way,

3 it's a fantastic spot to have a meeting

4 like this. In fact, if you come to

5 Monmouth, we opened a dorm on the

6 waterfront, you may want to consider

7 coming back to school if you like. So

8 that's pretty exciting.

9 But for me as the director of UCI,

10 it was formed in 2005 largely on the U.S.

11 economic on policies. I came up from

12 D.C. as the first founding director. We

13 were permitted to bring these issues to

14 the local and state level and coming to

15 see this to fruition after these years.

16 It's particularly a fortunate time in the

17 Mid-Atlantic for everybody to pull

18 together. That's clearly something we've

19 learned from recent events that may be

20 focused on different issues. The

21 Mid-Atlantic coming together has never

22 been clearer.

23 If you've been around, we've

24 rebuilt some boardwalks, but there is a

25 lot of hidden hurt and a lot of problems

21

1 needed to get solved recovering from

2 Sandy, but you will be talking about the

3 ecological resources and understand

4 what's going on in the ocean so we can

5 make sure we are addressing the

6 fundamental problems for our ocean and

7 coastal areas. The storm reminds us how

8 precious the people and places are.

9 I know this will be a lot of

10 process talked about today that's

11 necessary. The people in the audience

12 are hopefully patient with that. It's

13 really important we get through that

14 because reminding us of the people and

15 places and not only the economic benefits

16 of travel, tourism, ports, fisheries, but

17 the rich fabric of fishers, retirees, the

18 multi-generations of people that depend

19 on the ocean and live on the ocean, as

20 well as families and immigrants. It's

21 important how the ocean is. We get

22 removed from -- we need to remember this

23 is good about the people and places as we

24 work through all of the difficult work

25 you have and the process you are

22

1 discussing the next two days.

2 And the other thing about the RPB

3 which is exciting to me and I really

4 challenge you, we are not looking to the

5 past, but the future. That's the other

6 thing in my mind which is very much part

7 of the charters and your commitment

8 toward the future and look toward those

9 challenging issues, ecological issues,

10 alternative energy growth, and

11 international trade, securities, these

12 are issues for tomorrow and we are

13 prepared for you to do that.

14 And finally, I'll conclude, you are

15 not in it alone. There is -- really is a

16 lot of folks, some are here, but I know

17 there are many in the region who are

18 certainly committed to work with you. I

19 am looking at the familiar faces and not

20 familiar faces in the audience. You are

21 not alone. There are people to help you

22 advance that call. So if there is

23 anything we can do as you work through

24 your agenda, let us know, I'm sure

25 everybody in the audience is more

23

1 committed than I to move the agenda

2 forward.

3 Welcome to Monmouth. Here is to a

4 great meeting and looking forward to it.

5 MS. CANTRAL: Did you say there was

6 going to be a puppet show later?

7 MR. McDONALD: We can arrange that.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Good. Thank you for

9 those remarks and your hospitality, and

10 as Tony mentioned, there are a couple of

11 RPB members who couldn't be with us. I

12 did want to point out in particular a

13 vision to Tony's note, Jack, who is our

14 representative from Virginia, but also a

15 fishing representative, as a member of

16 the Fisheries Management Council had a

17 conflict today. He chairs a standing

18 meeting. He could not -- he has to be

19 participating in and attending. He is

20 really disappointed he is not here with

21 us today and sends his regrets, but we

22 have a lot of people here with us today,

23 so I would like to invite all of you RPB

24 members to introduce yourselves as we go

25 around the room.

24

1 We'll start with Sarah. We ask you

2 to give us your name, title and

3 affiliation and then also answer the

4 question -- just brief comment on the

5 question in your view why is regional

6 ocean planning important for the

7 Mid-Atlantic and what is your No. 1 hope

8 or desired outcome as a result of the

9 process?

10 MS. COOKSEY: Thank you, Laura.

11 Good morning. I'm Sarah Cooksey

12 from the State of Delaware and board

13 member of the MARCO administrative board.

14 I run our coastal resource and research

15 along with those other duties assigned as

16 the Department of Natural Resources and

17 Environmental Control.

18 Quickly, what I'm looking to get

19 out of it is the ability to make better

20 decisions for ocean health and human

21 beings through some sort of streamline

22 process. And then when Tony mentions

23 puppeteers and puppets, I thought another

24 goal would be to reduce the number of

25 puppeteers. Thank you.

25

1 MR. ROSEN: Good morning. I'm

2 Marty Rosen with the Department of

3 Environmental Protection Coastal

4 Management. I'm serving to -- our

5 commissioner couldn't be here and like

6 Sarah, a member of the MARCO board,

7 New Jersey representative.

8 What value today's session I think

9 should be fairly self-evident. Any time

10 you have a range of interests, desire to

11 utilize the common resource, it's better

12 to have a collaborative systematic data

13 driven approach to managing that and --

14 (inaudible) approach. I think planning

15 in any kind of reasonable way makes sense

16 this is a natural progression for

17 managing the ocean.

18 What I want to see out of this?

19 You know, certainly in the wake of Sandy

20 and the impacts on the state, I would

21 like to see how ocean planning -- special

22 planning can be a positive force for

23 recreating a more resilient coast in the

24 coastal communities to address the

25 hazards less exclusive part of the

26

1 process and potential benefits. I want

2 to see how this process pays tribute to

3 that. Thank you.

4 MR. ATANGAN: I'm Joe Atangan. I

5 represent the Joint Staff. I'm home

6 based out of Norfolk, Virginia and work

7 for the commander of the U.S. Fleet

8 Forces Command.

9 For those not in the military,

10 that's -- to put simply, is the home of

11 the Atlantic fleet. As part of the

12 Atlantic fleet, our priorities are

13 reserving our military training ranges

14 just off the coast here in the U.S. The

15 Mid-Atlantic is a key component of that

16 in that a majority of our training areas

17 are right here just off the coast of the

18 Mid-Atlantic regions.

19 Our goal for this process is to,

20 one, streamline the dialogue that has to

21 take place in order to preserve our uses

22 for those training ranges. In the past

23 we've had free range there. We went to

24 those open oceans because that's where

25 people weren't, but as industry starts

27

1 building and as more and more folks are

2 gaining access to the areas that have

3 traditionally been open, it becomes

4 incumbent upon us to work with those

5 folks to share the use of that area.

6 I believe this process right here,

7 just the fact you are bringing in all of

8 these states, all of the industry, all of

9 the federal regulators, all these folks

10 who have mutual interest in the ocean,

11 that you bring them here together to

12 start this dialogue, I think that's the

13 key part of this piece, starting the

14 dialogue to make sure that we prevent

15 conflicts.

16 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Good morning. I'm

17 Greg Capobianco and I'm here as an

18 alternate on behalf of our New York

19 State. I'm very pleased to be here

20 today. I work for the New York State

21 Coastal Management Program, which is

22 housed now in the newly renamed Office of

23 Planning and Development in the

24 Department of State. I am the program

25 lead for the Ocean and Great Lakes

28

1 Program and we have engaged in some

2 state-based ocean planning for quite some

3 time.

4 I guess what -- I'm very excited to

5 be here -- I would like to see out of

6 this process is some results from a wide

7 conversation that is going to generate

8 some better understanding about our

9 unique needs and how our federal agency

10 friends can really help the states and

11 local government meet those needs. I'm

12 looking forward to productive dialogue.

13 Joe is right, this is the start of the

14 conversation, but I'm very glad to be

15 here for the start and look forward to

16 working with you all.

17 MR. WALTERS: Good morning, John

18 Walters, representing United States Coast

19 Guard. What's important, multiple user

20 potential conflicts all exist offshore.

21 Coast guard interest here is ensuring the

22 system functions and functions well to

23 ensure the competitiveness of the

24 United States, continues and our reach to

25 the world continues to exist not

29

1 unfettered, but impeded so with everybody

2 enjoys the benefits of marine

3 transportation, international commerce

4 and we continue to work with our partners

5 in the Navy and states to ensure we are

6 all healthy.

7 It's great to have these

8 multi-jurisdictional entities all

9 represented at the table here and the

10 conversations since this organization or

11 this body formed has just been

12 outstanding. So much more education has

13 been embedded with me as to who and

14 what -- who is playing offshore and what

15 is the impact to each other. We just

16 hope for everything to continue and

17 improve in the future.

18 MR. RAMOS: Good morning, I'm David

19 Ramos with the U.S. Department of

20 Commercial Natural Resources. Our

21 interest here is really, first of all,

22 recognizing that oceans provide a

23 significant food source for a large

24 population. We mostly do work on upland

25 areas, private land owners, most of the

30

1 time people we work with, although we do

2 some work in oyster bed restoration, as

3 well as some other near shore-type work,

4 restoration work mostly. We also do

5 emergency water protection after natural

6 disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy. Our

7 interest is to basically make sure what

8 we are doing on the uplands and our

9 recovery work is not having a negative

10 impact on the oceans, especially with

11 water quality.

12 MS. IRIGOYEN: I'm Ingrid Irigoyen,

13 part of the facilitation team at Meridian

14 Institute and I'm your humble note taker.

15 MR. SMITH: Good morning,

16 Roddy Smith from Shinnecock Nation, CFO

17 and natural resources adviser to the

18 nation. In its preliminary simplest

19 terms, for us this is just to learn to

20 manage our oceans in a better way going

21 forward and of course in the many state

22 holders, many interests, but coming

23 together, all of us coming together and

24 managing in a better way, and through our

25 perspective we see what's happening out

31

1 of balance. We call it things becoming

2 out of balance. If we continue in this

3 way it is just not a good thing with all

4 of us here to learn how to manage in a

5 better way and bring that balance back.

6 MS. SCHULTZ: Good morning. I'm

7 Gwynne Schultz and I'm representing the

8 State of Maryland. I'm the senior

9 coastal ocean policy within the

10 natural -- Department of Natural

11 Resources and current the share of the

12 mark co-management board.

13 With regard to why we do ocean

14 planning, its importance, I really see

15 this as an opportunity for us to be

16 proactive, to get in front of a number of

17 issues before they really do become a

18 problem, and as I look out three years,

19 five years, personally what I would like

20 to see instead of us -- and by us, I mean

21 government agencies, industry, NGOs,

22 recreational groups, I would like to see

23 us not spending as much time as

24 protecting your own turf or promoting the

25 self-interest by ourselves, but instead

32

1 working as a group promoting ourself,

2 interests in collaboration and

3 coordination with all of our other

4 partners to achieve some common

5 objective. It's about that process, in

6 bringing that process together.

7 MS. BORNHOLDT: Good morning. I'm

8 Maureen Bornholdt. Please don't call me

9 Maureen. It's short and sweet to the

10 point I'm hopefully all those things as

11 well. I'm presently the program manager

12 for the Offshore Renewal Program. It's a

13 small bureau within the Department of the

14 Interior, the co-lead -- and co-leader of

15 this body.

16 My reason why thinking ocean

17 planning in the Mid-Atlantic we are

18 involved in a changing world. You heard

19 from John talking about sustaining --

20 sustaining maritime commerce. You heard

21 from Gwynne it's no longer us, it's the

22 we, that's the we and that's important

23 about this effort. We are a changing

24 community and the changing resources in

25 credible demand.

33

1 My kind of end point is like what

2 Gwynne mentioned and Sarah mentioned and

3 the others before me, to cost cut across

4 the stove pipes and have the dialogue and

5 we can end up to work together, manage

6 the resources and create an environment

7 of discussion and instead of conflict and

8 have the working relationship I can reach

9 to Doug, talk to Sarah, talk to the folks

10 that work with Sarah, so I know who to

11 approach, where can I get information,

12 science, traditional knowledge to help

13 make our decision-making more efficient

14 and informed.

15 MR. ZEMBA: I'm Andy Zemba. I work

16 at the Department of Environmental

17 Protection in Pennsylvania, the director

18 of our Interstate Waters' Office.

19 Although Pennsylvania does not have

20 any ocean front property, we feel it's

21 important for us to be here and part of

22 the discussion. You know we are part of

23 a number of interstate organizations,

24 whether it's Delaware River basic

25 economic, Chesapeake Bay program,

34

1 different organizations like that.

2 We need to protect the estuaries

3 linked to the ocean. This is about what

4 is our role in this really, what we are

5 looking for to come out of this. You

6 know, obviously things we do much like

7 NRCS, we try to protect water quality.

8 It's important to think about the

9 economics in addition to the

10 environmental resources. We've got ports

11 in Delaware estuary. We have to be

12 thinking about bottom line. We want to

13 be part of this discussion as we move

14 forward and develop a plan and

15 appropriate how to deal with the

16 different uses and balance the different

17 issues.

18 MR. MACH: I'm Frank Mach with the

19 Maritime Administration representative

20 for the U.S. Department of

21 Transportation. Maritime Administration

22 essentially is on the books for carrying

23 out the Merchant Marine starting with the

24 1903 Act and going through the various

25 other acts as they are updated

35

1 continuously. Those acts are basically

2 set up to have us as advocates for the

3 maritime free and marine transportation

4 system and all of the things that support

5 the marine transportation system, as John

6 suggested, starting with shipyards,

7 building shipyards and unions that work

8 those yards, the ports and numerous other

9 aspects of the industry that have

10 commercial as advocacy needs, and my

11 hopes here are we can take this body, as

12 has been mentioned a number of times, and

13 compact and streamline and various

14 regulations in place and hopefully still

15 maintain the environmental qualities

16 already in place. Thank you.

17 MR. PABST: Doug Pabst, EPA. Call

18 me Doug. My mom calls me Douglas. I

19 have the pleasure being here representing

20 the EPA Region II. I'm the chief of the

21 dredging -- sediment dredging and have a

22 history in the oceans and see a lot of

23 familiar faces and look forward to

24 working with everyone to do good. The

25 Mid-Atlantic ocean does not recognize

36

1 political or other created boundaries.

2 Potentially competing uses over the

3 Mid-Atlantic across the boundaries

4 necessitates our working together to

5 clearly understand the resources. My

6 hope through what everybody else wants,

7 that we work together to establish a

8 scientifically based approach that

9 balances economic development with

10 economic protection and we work together

11 to protect the environment for future

12 generations, and game on.

13 MR. BIGFORD: I'm Tom Bigford, I

14 represent the Department of Commerce, and

15 I specifically am from the National

16 Ocean -- I work on habitat issues. My

17 view here is very much related to my

18 hope, I really look forward to us working

19 together to improve the existing

20 processes, to apply them to the new

21 challenges out there in the ocean and

22 make some quality decisions on difficult

23 challenges, be much more efficient about

24 that. Many people around the table and

25 their agencies I work would've been at

37

1 that 35, 35 years in meeting new -- new

2 people. Hey we have to work together and

3 develop relationships beyond where we've

4 already been closely associated. We all

5 engage and commit to the process that we

6 are all in like you say --

7 MR. PABST: Game on.

8 MR. BIGFORD: That's sounds good

9 for me, too. My hope, I get a chance to

10 sign the charter before I retire in

11 January. So, that's a challenge to me

12 and everybody else, but I would like to

13 also like to change the other thank the

14 other Department of Commerce and know

15 people past and present who are in the

16 audience know is deeply committed to this

17 and nice to see a handful of people in

18 the audience.

19 MS. McKAY: Good morning. I'm

20 Laura McKay with the Virginia Coastal

21 Zone Management Program. I'm

22 representing my boss, Rex Weeks, who is

23 the chief deputy at the Virginia

24 Department of Environmental Quality, and

25 he sends his regrets he couldn't be here.

38

1 It's always hard being almost last.

2 David has it the worst being the last.

3 Tom could come up with something new and

4 different, basically I think ocean

5 planning is important. It's the wet

6 equivalent what we've gone on the land

7 with comprehensive planning and it's kind

8 of shocking that it's taken this country

9 so long to look at the ocean in that way.

10 So I'm very grateful we have a National

11 Ocean Policy. It's even an incredible

12 opportunity for all of us to make a

13 really historic difference in the way we

14 deal with the ocean.

15 So that's why it's important to

16 look at it comprehensively so that all

17 things are considered using the best

18 available knowledge and understanding,

19 and as Roddy say, looking ahead to many

20 generations. It's definitely time we get

21 started with that.

22 One of my big hopes for this is

23 that this forum that we've now created as

24 a regional planning body is really

25 institutionalized, we have a window of

39

1 time here to get this done. We hopefully

2 have some funding for the next few years

3 to keep this process going. I just think

4 it's a huge responsibility on all of us

5 to stick together and make this the way

6 we do business in this country forever

7 more. Thanks.

8 MR. NOBLE: Good morning,

9 David Noble with the Department of Navy,

10 Director of Environmental Planning and

11 Conservation for the Navy's Mid-Atlantic

12 region. I represent the Department of

13 Defense, not only the Navy, Marine, Army

14 Corps. of Engineers and Air Force in this

15 process.

16 As many people said, this is long,

17 long overdue. It's hard to believe this

18 has not happened 10 or 15 years ago.

19 Obviously, there were big pushes for land

20 use planning on the upland and wetlands

21 area and that sort of thing and

22 staggering to think we've ignored the

23 ocean for this long is certainly

24 shrinking in a lot of ways. Even though

25 sea level rising, might be expanding the

40

1 ocean in some ways, it's shrinking in

2 terms of the uses. I'm interested in

3 moving forward with working with

4 different stakeholders and coming with --

5 up with a balanced approach on allowing

6 certain -- to accomplish its commission

7 in an environmental competent manner.

8 MS. CANTRAL: All right. Thank

9 you.

10 Thanks to all of you for sharing

11 the reflections, and as we went around

12 the table, the recurring themes of a

13 changing world necessitates a change in

14 the way we do the business of managing

15 our oceans and relationships, building a

16 relationship that you are starting to

17 build as a group, and also working with

18 the people who are of this region and all

19 of the improved information that comes

20 with those that development of those

21 relationships can lead to better

22 decisions and the collaboration and

23 coordination that goes along with that.

24 As Tony pointed out, there is a lot

25 of process that goes along with that, a

41

1 lot of what you are going to have to

2 discuss today at your first meeting is

3 going to be about a lot of process.

4 Because we have -- we have to understand

5 those things and make some decisions

6 about how to function.

7 But I'm competent in working with

8 this group that everyone really

9 understands and is committed to the fact

10 that it's fundamentally about the people

11 and about the future as many of you said.

12 So, thank you for that, a great way

13 to get started into our discussions, and

14 at that point I think we'll turn to the

15 next session on our agenda which will be

16 a tag team effort among the three

17 co-leads, and I think we made it clear in

18 a random introductions Mo Bornholdt serve

19 as the federal co-lead, Gwynne Schultz is

20 the state co-lead, and Roddy Smith is the

21 tribal co-lead. It's a triumphant that

22 represent the three governmental sectors

23 that sit on that body and that co-lead

24 responsibility is anticipated by the

25 charter and other procedures that those

42

1 responsibilities will rotate, but right

2 now these are the three individuals who

3 have that role and responsibilities and

4 they are going to provide an overview of

5 some of the activities to date. Since

6 the RPB was formally established in

7 April, and to present some thinking

8 about -- some initial thinking about

9 timeline for RPB activities over the next

10 few years.

11 So, I think Roddy will kick this

12 off and bounce it among the three of us.

13 MR. SMITH: Thank you again.

14 Opportunities and challenges.

15 Good morning, fellow RPB members,

16 and thank you for those interested

17 stakeholders for joining us today.

18 We consider our progress and chart

19 the next steps for the RPB, we are

20 gathered here together today because of

21 our personal and professional connection

22 to the ocean, our roles in its

23 stewardship. So these common connections

24 stem from our appreciation of the fish

25 and wildlife and other natural resources

43

1 the ocean supports, the cultural

2 treasures that are important to

3 understand our past and guide our future,

4 and many of other livelihoods depends on

5 the resources in the Atlantic Ocean. I'm

6 confident you are participating in this

7 meeting. There are better ways to manage

8 the ocean, obtain and share better data,

9 create efficient government

10 decision-making.

11 I'm competent you share your

12 interest in sharing myth Mid-Atlantic

13 planning adds value, entities

14 constituents, commercial and natural

15 resources across of Mid-Atlantic region

16 that depend on the ocean.

17 Our ocean and our uses of the ocean

18 are dynamic. There are many

19 opportunities and challenges on the

20 horizon. To give you a few examples,

21 offshore wind energy, expansion of

22 commercial fishing when the Panama Canal

23 project is completed, and operation of

24 military bases, stewardship of our marine

25 resources.

44

1 The Atlantic Ocean is a business,

2 is place and demand for ocean area and

3 resources are increasing our charge as

4 Mid-Atlantic RPB to provide a forum for

5 coordination and sharing all of the

6 levels of government for agreed-upon

7 goals and objectives. Using a process

8 that is informed by the public and

9 interested stakeholders, ocean users. So

10 we must make the most of our opportunity

11 to talk for the two days about these

12 important opportunities and challenges,

13 and on that note I turn it over to Gwynne.

14 MS. SCHULTZ: Well, as members of

15 the RPB, we all engage in continuing to

16 ocean planning process and help the

17 region embrace future opportunities and

18 work through the challenges. Our purpose

19 is to coordinate federal, state and

20 tribal representatives to prepare to be

21 proactive and prepare for expanded uses

22 so we can ensure stronger coastal

23 communities and economies, as well as a

24 healthier ocean and ecco system, also

25 work to make sure -- make better and more

45

1 informed decisions about the use of ocean

2 space and also make smarter use of our

3 public resources.

4 Through that process, we are

5 committing to work with stakeholders and

6 the public to achieve our shared goals in

7 this to occur throughout the entire

8 planning process as we identify goals,

9 objectives and work through our projects.

10 As we take this charge, there is a number

11 of important considerations for us to

12 consider. First is really the key about

13 the stakeholder engagement and that to me

14 means coordinated stakeholders,

15 scientific technical experts and members

16 of the public to address all of our ocean

17 and coastal issues.

18 Through this effort we are

19 supporting the National Ocean Policy

20 which calls for existing executive and

21 legislative authority to strengthen

22 coordination more effectively, to

23 strengthen our marine stewardship as a

24 collective of federal, state, tribal and

25 fishery management. It's important that

46

1 each of our entities take action within

2 our existing legal authorities and that

3 the Mid-Atlantic RPB is not using any

4 independent authority. We want to use it

5 as a forum to provide for collective

6 discussions.

7 And just as a reminder, we will be

8 discussing, as we go on, each of the

9 participating agencies are responsible to

10 provide resources to support their own

11 participation in this regional planning

12 process. We need to think of the RPB as

13 a forum to assist agencies in carrying

14 out the existing core admissions and

15 improved coordination with all of our

16 counterparts. The bottom line is the RPB

17 is going to provide for better, more

18 coordinated an efficient collaborative

19 process in an approach from many of the

20 different federal law agencies and

21 programs that are already in place. So,

22 Mo?

23 MS. BORNHOLDT: Thank you.

24 Kind of picking up there, where

25 have we been? Some of you were in the

47

1 audience in April when we established as

2 an RPB and it was kind of fun to

3 initially have that face to face and meet

4 our cohorts around the table. So we got

5 kind of the lift with regard to initial

6 public input at that April workshop.

7 Since April what we decided to do

8 is -- was identify different areas we

9 needed to take our first leap to base our

10 foundational materials. We did that

11 through the work groups. I wanted to

12 call out the co-champions. We had our

13 stakeholder engagement with Tom and

14 Sarah, kind of leading the charge there

15 to collect some concepts and philosophy

16 we can use in the dialogue today and use

17 in the planning processes, as well as the

18 regional ocean planning goals and

19 geographic focus. We had Greg and Doug

20 take on that important issue to kind of

21 bring to the RPB table some initial

22 concepts, provocative discussion groups

23 to carry out the work with regard to

24 operational administrative procedures.

25 Joe, we tapped on Joe and begin to be

48

1 able to help us frame up with is a

2 charter, how to make sure how our

3 business is framed up so to see what our

4 roles and responsibilities, et cetera.

5 And cannot forget Dave and Laura McKay

6 and John Walters from the Coast Guard.

7 We use the informal groups to kind of be

8 our brains to feed the dialogue we'll

9 have today.

10 The dialogue we had today with the

11 August 1st webinar which was really,

12 really successful participation on part

13 of the RPB and input we received from the

14 public all forming how we are thinking,

15 how we are going to approach ocean

16 planning.

17 As Laura mentioned earlier, we have

18 posted our materials on our website and

19 encourage all of us to use around the RPB

20 table, as well as those joining us today

21 the website hosted on the OBY. If you

22 look on the left there is a Mid-Atlantic

23 employees use that our hope is folks

24 around the table as well as people

25 joining to us today, take a look at those

49

1 materials to foster really robust

2 discussion and informed discussion on

3 some of the challenges we have before us.

4 We also have another tool, we have

5 an email address, and that's the

6 Mid-Atlantic RPBAOEM.gov. We have --

7 some are using that particular tool and

8 our members use some of the

9 correspondence and inquiry. We have data

10 from our email website.

11 So, as Laura mentioned, we've

12 intentionally structured this meeting

13 today that we have the conversation

14 around the table, take a pause, have

15 public input and consider that, you know,

16 as we move forward through our days and

17 planning ahead for the next generation

18 and tackling some of these administrative

19 objectives and goals and other targets,

20 how to deal with them and integrate them.

21 This will inform our decision-making

22 today as well as setting up a plan how to

23 move forward in the next six months and

24 the next five years begin you'll walk us

25 through the outline today in our thinking

50

1 in that kind of thing.

2 MS. SCHULTZ: First, I would like to

3 ask the members, I think if you turn to

4 tab three, you'll see a copy of the

5 timeline. For those of you in the

6 audience, I know we provided a copy of

7 the timeline on line and if you didn't

8 print out a copy, there is also some

9 posters around that show the timeline I'm

10 going to be walking through.

11 What was established is through the

12 draft timeline that brings us to a

13 five-year period, and I'll start saying

14 this is a draft, it's for discussion

15 purposes, it's not cast in stone. I

16 anticipate some modifications to this as

17 we go over -- go through today's and

18 tomorrow's discussion, and what we would

19 like to do is walk through each of the

20 bulleted items in the columns and first

21 draw your attention to the very bottom of

22 the page where you see that big bold

23 arrow. That bold arrow calls out three

24 things, says we are going to have

25 continuous stakeholder engagement

51

1 throughout the process and ongoing data

2 collection, sharing and integration, and

3 we are also going to be seeing a lot of

4 continuous adaptation of the products as

5 we learn some lessons.

6 So taking a look at the column on

7 our left, that is for covering the period

8 from the rest of 2013 and going into

9 2014. I call that Phase I. That's where

10 we'll be organizing and identifying our

11 goals and products.

12 First bullet talks about we are

13 going to be organizing our operations.

14 Things such as charter, which is a

15 document that ensures that we have a

16 clear understanding of our roles and

17 responsibilities and --

18 MR. SMITH: To the RPB members,

19 we'll be discussing that in more detail

20 during Joe's presentation tomorrow. We

21 are in the process of trying to discuss

22 staff and what is our current capacity

23 and current capacity needs. We'll be

24 spending some time looking at work groups

25 and what would be the best structure in

52

1 the work group, and also, especially as

2 part of our stakeholder engagement

3 activity, we'll be looking at the

4 creation and how to create different

5 advisory bodies. That does get into the

6 second bullet, we'll be extending a lot

7 of time and talking about during the next

8 day or two identifying and instituting

9 the mechanisms.

10 Third bullet really is very

11 aggressive in that it's saying by the end

12 of 2014, we will have vision on goals,

13 objectives, specific actions, principles

14 and geographic focus established. This

15 is an ambiguous timeline. I anticipate

16 we'll be revisiting this over the next

17 couple days to say is it feasible, and

18 how to approach it, can we meet the

19 deadlines?

20 Down to the fourth bullet, we

21 anticipate working on the first iteration

22 of the work plan during this first phase.

23 A work plan outlines activities and

24 milestones for the RPBs and should

25 describe what is the overall planning

53

1 process, what are the key milestones and

2 products available and required

3 resources, as well as describing how the

4 RPB will engage stakeholders in the

5 public planning process.

6 So, finally during this 2013 and

7 '14 time frame, we anticipate in the

8 beginning and/or continuing development

9 of the suite of products, the first one

10 being a regional assessment. This is

11 where we analyze relevant information

12 about the marine environment and the

13 human activities in the region. Some of

14 the elements that may be included in

15 assessment would include biological and

16 geophysical conditions, human uses and

17 economies and future needs of proposed

18 uses.

19 The next product is -- we call it

20 capacity assessment, and that's a process

21 where we identify existing resource as

22 Initiatives at the regional, state,

23 tribal and global levels that may help

24 support marine planning. We look at

25 those products and tools and data

54

1 expertise and any of the things that help

2 to contribute to advancing our regional

3 goals and objectives.

4 One of the tools we'll be

5 discussing during that meeting is the

6 MARCO portal, the Mid-Atlantic portal.

7 It's important to meet some of our data

8 and information needs.

9 Shifting to the middle column up,

10 during 2015 and '16, we would work to

11 implement the work plan, and then also

12 refine it as we learn lessons, and so we

13 are also going to be completing our first

14 iteration of a number of products.

15 That's where we hope to meet the regional

16 assessment and capacity assessment.

17 As we work through the planning

18 process and we monitor and evaluate our

19 activities, we'll see the need

20 potentially for certain additional

21 products and information to pull in

22 additional expert analysis and data and

23 information. One of the possible

24 products would be an ocean plan, and at

25 this stage the RPB is not really

55

1 determining the exact nature of what is

2 meant by ocean planning.

3 So what we are thinking is for now

4 we are going to set that question aside

5 and focus more on undertaking and

6 completing our initial products and we

7 would revisit this concept of an ocean

8 plan during the second phase.

9 During this time frame, 2015 and

10 going beyond that, we really anticipate

11 that the region is going to be beginning

12 to experience really some of the benefits

13 of our work, and you'll see on the

14 timeline just a couple of those bullets:

15 Increased collaboration, heightened

16 awareness, increased leveraging, greater

17 predictability. And so we need to --

18 we'll start seeing some of it in the

19 outcoming of our work.

20 Finally, during the last phase from

21 2017 and '18 is where some of our

22 products we've produced will be refined

23 based on lessons learned, some products

24 finalized and hopefully we are well

25 underway with implementation.

56

1 So just as a reminder, before I

2 hand it back to Laura, this is a draft

3 for discussion, and we look forward to

4 everybody's input. Thank you.

5 MS. CANTRAL: All right. Great.

6 So, now we've got some time to have

7 some discussion about anything that was

8 shared by the co-leads, in particular

9 with regard to the draft outline that

10 Gwynne just walked through with all of the

11 caveats that she included, and I would

12 also like to point out that some of the

13 questions and impressions for this time

14 range may become clearer over the course

15 of our discussion later today and

16 tomorrow.

17 So we've intentionally built time

18 into our agenda later tomorrow to revisit

19 this because some things may become clear

20 and occur to you as we go through some of

21 the subsequent discussions.

22 With that said, we would like to

23 invite your questions, comments and

24 reactions, thoughts about what Gwynne has

25 presented, the three phases. She went

57

1 into a lot of detail about the first

2 phase, but obviously that's where you are

3 right now and projecting out what that

4 might suggest, the farther out into the

5 other years and any other phases. So any

6 thoughts?

7 MR. ROSEN: Typically, planning

8 processes, common aspect of it is to have

9 measures of success for progress. I

10 didn't hear that mentioned this morning.

11 So I know we are in the early stages.

12 Do you anticipate that will be a

13 component of the planning process? And

14 we should be thinking about that now or

15 part of the work plan process?

16 MS. SCHULTZ: I would anticipate it

17 as part of the work plan. We would

18 identify mechanisms and monitor and

19 evaluate our progress in a more -- that's

20 up for discussion, but in a little bit

21 more of a structured mechanisms versus

22 kind of ad hoc lessons learned.

23 MS. CANTRAL: Sarah?

24 MS. COOKSEY: This is just a

25 comment at this point, and I'm not

58

1 addressing it to just the co-chairs but

2 everybody in this room for us to banter

3 about.

4 It's unclear to me how we can pull

5 all of this together without having what

6 we are saying we might not do the ocean

7 plan. So I still don't have figured out

8 in my head, especially when I see already

9 we've had some turnover in our board so

10 what will be left at the end of the day

11 other than an ocean plan. So that's just

12 if someone has an answer I would -- would

13 love to know what that is, but it's food

14 for thought at this point.

15 MS. CANTRAL: So this notion of

16 what it is you are actually creating is a

17 plan or an ocean plan. This has been

18 coming up in some of your communications.

19 Does anyone want to offer a thought

20 about Sarah's comment?

21 MS. COOKSEY: We've been through

22 the idea of a process as well.

23 MS. McKAY: I think that is a

24 really key concept. Are we creating a

25 plan or are we creating a forum and

59

1 process, a place to solve problems? I

2 don't quite know the answer, but I do

3 know that plans have a tendency to be

4 static and sit on a shelf and I assume

5 none of us want that.

6 So what we call this may be a

7 little bit problematic to me. Process

8 makes a little more sense. We've created

9 this for the RPB. We have the data and

10 tools being developed and more and more

11 data being collected. That will be done

12 as well into the future. And so trying

13 to define what a plan would look like is

14 really difficult and I'm not sure how to

15 go about it. I feel more comfortable

16 talking about a process and a baseline of

17 current resources and using and working

18 together to determine how we want those

19 resources and uses to shift over time.

20 So I am sorry, not an answer, but just

21 the way it feels in my head.

22 MS. CANTRAL: Yes. This is the

23 kind of reflection and dialogue we want

24 and Sarah was inviting with the document.

25 We have Doug and Joe.

60

1 MR. PABST: This is the essence of

2 the conversation we've been having,

3 talking about the goals you get involved

4 in, what do you want it to look like

5 versus what are you trying to do, and we

6 really haven't defined whether it's a

7 widget, a machine or process. That has

8 not been defined. We've had good

9 conversations about what we would like to

10 do and what I think it's going to be an

11 evolving process a little circular in

12 some of the conversation I think evident

13 during my talk, whether it's a car or a

14 train, I think it's going to be some form

15 of transportation that gets us somewhere,

16 and hopefully gets everybody to the same

17 place. That's what we've been trying to

18 focus on, just getting all of us to speak

19 the same language and look at the same --

20 through the same lens, and the data

21 portal has been helpful in that, you

22 know, and language has been an issue for

23 a lot of us in government at this state

24 and federal level, what we mean when we

25 say a lot of things.

61

1 I don't think we have a specific

2 answer, but I lean towards something

3 living, not just another plan that gets

4 put on a shelf. I like the way you said

5 that. I think it's widgets at that point

6 that does a lot of good things that we

7 are trying to figure out right now.

8 MR. ATANGAN: The military has a

9 lot of plans, we develop a lot of complex

10 plans, and I think it was Grant who said

11 the beauty of plans -- well, in the some

12 of the beauty of plans it's the war plans

13 are only good until you make sure you

14 first contact with the enemy. So I think

15 that we really don't need so much to --

16 it does not have to be one or the other.

17 It does not have to be a process or a

18 plan. I think it's a combination of

19 both. You have to look at the developing

20 a plan in order to develop that process

21 and it's that -- it's that working

22 towards that plan that will help you

23 identify the processes that you are going

24 to need to employ in order to achieve

25 what's in that plan, in order to identify

62

1 were you going to diverge from that plan

2 when you realize that we've got this

3 great plan that will sit on a shelf and

4 it's a few years old now and does not fit

5 the bill anymore, how are we going to

6 change it? How are we going to modify

7 this thing? So it can be implemented

8 based on the most recent information we

9 have.

10 So, I guess what I would like the

11 body to do is let's stop what is it going

12 to be, a plan or process? Let's set a

13 mark, proceed and develop that process

14 towards that mark and we'll figure it out

15 once we get there. But I think if we sit

16 here and discuss, well, is it going to be

17 a process or plan, we'll be here next

18 year talking about the same thing.

19 Let's move.

20 MS. CANTRAL: Let's take a couple

21 other thoughts on this as I see Tom and

22 Frank.

23 MR. BIGFORD: Well said. Joe, I

24 agree there and there is another way to

25 slice this. It might be different to the

63

1 regional planning body and public. I

2 think the public also will benefit from a

3 process or plan and will help them

4 develop business plans to respect where

5 we are in a couple years whether it's

6 wind power, offshore agriculture or

7 different tanker separation we are not

8 aware of, another endangered species I

9 don't know.

10 It's going to be different to the

11 people in the audience and the sectors

12 they represent and those may be involved

13 more in the official planning regulatory

14 roles. So that's another angle to this

15 which is really important -- we are using

16 but so are the people in the audience.

17 MR. MACH: I have a question. The

18 National Ocean Council has established a

19 handle for the regional planning values.

20 I'm not an expert, but there is probably

21 some guidelines in the handbook to push

22 us in the right direction. It's obvious

23 Mid-Atlantic has certain areas that are

24 specific to the area and has to be

25 modified to reflect those specifics. But

64

1 there should be some overall guidance

2 that would help us out.

3 MS. CANTRAL: You are right, and I

4 think that's a good point. There is a

5 lot of helpful guidance and advice and

6 suggestions in the handbook, and also

7 part of that handbook, those of you who

8 are familiar with it, is the motion of

9 flexibility. So that regions can design

10 their processes and what you call the

11 things, widget or train that you are

12 designing in a way that makes sense for

13 your region, your stakeholders, your

14 needs and your goals.

15 MR. MACH: The charter which Joe

16 has been working on for the northeast

17 group is probably a template for us and

18 hopefully a template for the other RPBs

19 as they are established around the

20 country.

21 MS. CANTRAL: Absolutely.

22 MR. MACH: Another common goal

23 would help us in working with our

24 organizations or RPBs around the country.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Yes.

65

1 So what I'm hearing out of this --

2 what I'm hearing out of this dialogue,

3 you are comfortable with the notion of

4 what it is you are doing you don't want

5 it to be static, you want it to be an

6 ongoing living process, a forum and

7 process, an opportunity for articulating

8 goals and developing strategies for

9 coordinating activities and carrying

10 those out within existing authorities in

11 order to reach those goals, and that you

12 are thinking -- you're thinking about

13 this is going to be evolving. We are

14 here today to start that evolution, to

15 have some good discussion about what do

16 we think about the goals we want to

17 identify, and if we are landing on the

18 right set of goals, how do we carry those

19 out and achieve them and what are the

20 strategies, what is the work plan so we

21 can measure our success as we endeavor

22 and what is the overall timeline for key

23 markers along the way.

24 Anything else on the timeline or

25 any of the other comments from the --

66

1 before we shift into our next discussion?

2 So, then, Gwynne, I'll turn it back

3 to you. Gwynne is going to present some

4 ideas that had been developed by MARCO

5 about the relationship between that

6 entity which is represented, obviously

7 many people sitting here around the

8 table, and the RPB, so what does that

9 look like and what are some ideas for

10 some synergy and taking advantage of some

11 good work that's being done in the

12 context of MARCO? Gwynne.

13 MS. SCHULTZ: Thank you.

14 Before I start the presentation,

15 what I would like to do is just briefly

16 define MARCO. For those of you that may

17 not be living and breathing it, like some

18 of us are, MARCO, which stands for

19 Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the

20 Ocean, was established in 2009 by the

21 governors of New York, New Jersey,

22 Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to work

23 on shared regional ocean issues that we

24 believe would benefit from interstate

25 collaboration and coordinated problem

67

1 solving.

2 It's a partnership that we believe

3 provides early valuable forum in order to

4 meet our mutual goals. By the

5 Mid-Atlantic states, the MARCO board

6 members who are here, Sarah Cooksey

7 represents the State of Delaware, Marty

8 Rosen represents New Jersey, Greg

9 Capobianco represents New York, I

10 represent Maryland and Laura McKay

11 represents the State of Virginia on the

12 MARCO management board.

13 So, we coordinate frequently in

14 working through some of our management

15 challenges and opportunities.

16 So, we think that by MARCO and the

17 Mid-Atlantic RPB working together we

18 promote greater and more effective

19 governmental and private investment and

20 also generate more attention on the

21 priority of Mid-Atlantic issues to

22 accomplish its objective. MARCO is

23 offering a number of products and

24 services to the Mid-Atlantic RPB for the

25 ocean plan. I'll walk through the first

68

1 one being Mid-Atlantic, ocean portal

2 stakeholder engagement and the third, a

3 preliminary regional ocean assessment.

4 So, the first service that we have

5 and product is our Mid-Atlantic Ocean

6 data portal. What the Mid-Atlantic RPB

7 is actually going to need relevant and

8 credible data and undertaking to ocean

9 planning an accomplish that MARCO is

10 offering the portal for its use, and

11 during the presentation tomorrow, when we

12 get into the portal, Laura is going to

13 spend more time in walking through what

14 the portal is, what it can provide as a

15 service, and there will be an opportunity

16 for the RPB to engage in discussions and

17 see how much -- to what degree one

18 engages as a viable tool for the ocean

19 planning.

20 If we do move down that direction,

21 MARCO will work to ensure that data

22 quality criteria are developed and

23 adhered to and connect to adding

24 additional data relevant for ocean

25 planning and also make the portal and

69

1 associated visual tools available for

2 stakeholders.

3 The portal is a collaborative

4 effort not only among our states, but we

5 have a very strong team in the Monmouth

6 team, that even includes a number of

7 different organizations and entities, and

8 Laura will be getting into more of that

9 tomorrow.

10 The next service that we would like

11 to provide to the RPB is one of

12 stakeholder engagement as MARCO is

13 composed a lot of, you know, from the

14 states we have close connections to a lot

15 of our constituents with our local

16 governments and also with the businesses

17 and different communities along the

18 coast.

19 So, what we would like to do is

20 engage stakeholders been we've been

21 engaged in stakeholder to inform them of

22 our activities, but we see that doing

23 some of this on behalf of the RPB can

24 really help move our efforts forward, and

25 that any of the insights that we gain and

70

1 information we gain will be shared with

2 the Mid-Atlantic RPB on a regular basis.

3 And finally, the authorized item we

4 will get into a little bit more after

5 discussion, Tom will help out with the

6 regional OSHA assessment as a reminder

7 assessment used as maps and information

8 to describe the ocean environment and

9 human activities we believe that it

10 should leverage work by states, federal

11 agencies around then that it should be

12 coordinated with and use the data

13 contained in the portal.

14 Right now we've got a team of

15 regional partners going to have some

16 limited funding and want to work together

17 to initiate work on this kind of

18 preliminary ocean assessment in order to

19 kind of use components of one of those.

20 That's a brief overview, and the

21 rest of today and tomorrow we'll be

22 revisiting this issue about the various

23 issues or services that MARCO can provide

24 and hoping at the end of tomorrow we have

25 a better sense of future direction.

71

1 Thank you.

2 MS. CANTRAL: All right. So we

3 have a few minutes and we would like to

4 invite some discussion around what you

5 just heard from Gwynne's three categories

6 of products and services that MARCO can

7 contribute to the RPB effort, the ocean

8 data, part stakeholder engagement and

9 helping get started on the regional ocean

10 assessment. As Gwynne said, the details

11 how this relationship is these

12 contributions will play out in practice I

13 think will make more sense and get into

14 as our discussion moves forward this

15 afternoon and tomorrow. But for now, it

16 would be helpful to hear any reflections,

17 any questions for clarification, any

18 contribution to management. MARCO

19 management board members want to make to

20 what I just summarized? We just want to

21 hear kind of a general gut check, comfort

22 level, the nature of this relationship

23 and in what Gwynne has described.

24 Thoughts?

25 MR. WALTERS: It makes sense for

72

1 the RPB to work closely with MARCO on the

2 portal. It does not make any sense to me

3 to develop -- develop another portal or

4 access point for all of the ocean data.

5 How we access or for that cooperative

6 agreement if one is to be established how

7 do we interact with the MARCO board if

8 the portal does not meet all needs of the

9 federal aspects. There is an exchange of

10 funds that would have to occur, but this

11 is a stumbling block on all of our

12 agencies. So, funding is provided by

13 NOAA for a certain amount of work to be

14 performed by the Monmouth team to keep

15 the portal active. How do we -- if we

16 see there is an avenue or aspect of the

17 portal that's not meeting our needs, how

18 do we get those needs met? Is there

19 because there is a task order to the team

20 to develop certain functions? How do we

21 go about having that expanded to

22 incorporate more of what's needed?

23 And the discussion yesterday at the

24 developmental team meeting, it was

25 explained that the portal is more of a

73

1 30,000 foot strategic view of the world

2 at large in the ocean. And yet we are

3 going to tackle individual projects,

4 issues, problems, planning on the ocean

5 the refinement is not there. We can't

6 delve down so far. We have enough finite

7 or information what we are dealing with.

8 So I would like to propose or what

9 I'm thinking is maybe identify what we

10 really need to help the portal meet all

11 of our needs, maybe not 30,000 foot, but

12 500 foot level to tackle some of the

13 things come up. There needs to be some

14 issues addressed offshore and more feed

15 is needed to use the tool effectively.

16 MS. CANTRAL: So, in listening to

17 your remarks, it sounds like you are

18 flagging two good examples which we'll

19 get into more details.

20 With regard to the data portal, and

21 we'll be having discussion about that

22 tomorrow afternoon, some of the questions

23 that you just posed, I think will need to

24 be part of that discussion, and then some

25 discussion about the nature of the

74

1 relationship and how we document that

2 relationship and there is -- so that I

3 think is going to be part of the charter

4 discussion and some ideas met. So, thank

5 you for providing evidence of the fact

6 that we are going to need to get, now,

7 further into these discussions as we take

8 up the additional topics.

9 MR. MACH: Just a question, John.

10 The Coast Guard has a number of studies

11 going on right now considering offshore

12 commercial, is any of the data from those

13 studies being inputted to this portal?

14 MR. WALTERS: Not yet. We are

15 working on it. We have a team working

16 with Gwen Kraton and Nature Conservancy.

17 There is a meeting coming up next week in

18 Baltimore and Hamilton on the 2nd where

19 MARCO is meeting with the port interest

20 and Coast Guard's studies is also

21 participating in those meetings, and the

22 goal, I believe, is to incorporate or use

23 this tool to come up with a findings and

24 results of the port access route study.

25 This tool we are looking at is very

75

1 important to determine where marine

2 transportation is headed and to identify

3 those impediments or additions to the

4 ocean environment for marine

5 transportation needs to consider all

6 those various aspects of what's happening

7 in the ocean. We look at this as a tool

8 to help that, and right now -- that's why

9 we are having these meetings, to identify

10 where the shortcomings are, to identify a

11 good -- really, really good deal.

12 MR. MACH: Those studies are being

13 conducted off not only the Atlantic but

14 Pacific and Gulf.

15 MR. WALTERS: I'm not --

16 MR. MACH: Correct me if I'm wrong.

17 MR. WALTERS: I think there is one

18 on the west coast, but not yet off the

19 ground.

20 MR. MACH: The results of -- to get

21 the results inputted to this study

22 hopefully.

23 MR. WALTERS: I'm not sure that's

24 spelled out yet.

25 MR. MACH: Maybe that's something

76

1 to explore.

2 MS. CANTRAL: All work in progress.

3 MS. BORNHOLDT: That brings a good

4 point, not only for Coast Guard and the

5 types of studies you do, but the rest of

6 us around the timetable to have

7 environmental studies and regulatory

8 responsibilities that gather that type of

9 data, but let me take a step up in

10 altitude, and again -- and the rest of

11 the MARCO board present around the time

12 this is the kind of porte cochere. I sit

13 in Herendon, not near the coast and to be

14 able to have that ability to reach out

15 and benefit from the work the coastal

16 states have done in understanding the

17 issues on the landscape from the

18 perspective from the residents and users

19 is unique and important for to us embrace

20 that we don't have the resources to go

21 out and reinvent the wheel. This kind of

22 leveraging is at the hub of the

23 philosophy.

24 Thank you MARCO board for making

25 this offer for as tool as we move

77

1 forward. I appreciate that.

2 MS. CANTRAL: I see I'm thinking

3 we'll go around the table in order and

4 see where we are. Once you've all had a

5 chance to speak. Sarah, Joe, Greg and

6 Laura.

7 MS. COOKSEY: I'm going to be kind

8 of obvious here. We haven't had any

9 other options presented to us other than

10 MARCO stepping forward. So that would

11 have been nice, but we don't have that.

12 I think it's wise for us to act on the

13 options we were given, and again, it goes

14 without saying, I just want to make sure

15 everyone in this room, especially the

16 public, understands that MARCO is

17 primarily supported by federal funds

18 through the Coastal Zone Management Act,

19 of which have been declining, and now

20 regional ocean management and

21 partnerships have been added to our

22 portfolio of work, and we've been very

23 grateful for the small amount of money we

24 have gotten that has allowed us to do the

25 great work with -- trust and TNA,

78

1 et cetera to help us in the portal and

2 other scientific information.

3 So, just to keep expectations sort

4 of understood, I think the ability for us

5 to move forward will be directly related

6 to our finances.

7 MR. ATANGAN: Actually, I stole

8 some of the thunder, I was a federal

9 agency guide who didn't know how to spell

10 MARCO a couple years ago. I want to

11 thank what MARCO has done in advancing

12 this cause. I do believe we are -- even

13 though it seems like we are not far

14 along, we are farther along then where we

15 would be because of the efforts that have

16 been taking place with -- you know, with

17 MARCO's effort.

18 So, as a federal, I want to thank

19 all of the states participating in MARCO

20 and believe they are a critical partner

21 in moving this effort along. I

22 appreciate the resources piece. And

23 certainly, you know, we are all hurting

24 with resources, but if there is anything

25 we can do on the federal side to push

79

1 this along, we'll most certainly try to

2 do that. I couldn't go without saying

3 thank you to the MARCO folks for

4 advancing this cause.

5 MS. CANTRAL: Greg?

6 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Thanks again for

7 the overview.

8 The key thing that I'm thinking

9 about, and I know I'll have more

10 discussing it, but to queue it up for

11 food for thought today, what is the best

12 way to have enduring meaningful

13 stakeholder contributions to the work we

14 are about to undertake and it's

15 complimented. You know, there is -- I

16 think the states are in a good position

17 to reach out to their constituents, and

18 MARCO is comprised of the five states.

19 We've done a lot of that already, but the

20 question is -- I guess one of big

21 questions is, what is the structure? Are

22 we going to have committees? How are we

23 going to do this? What is the feedback

24 loop? How do we, as government so often

25 does, how do we avoid letting down the

80

1 stakeholders with what office and lack of

2 follow through and you know how do we

3 really, I think, boil down what are the

4 questions we are going to be asking and

5 what are we seeking input on?

6 I think there is -- you know, to me

7 that's a real pivotal turning point for

8 us to be productive and it does take the

9 resources, and it's a huge issue, and I

10 think if the MARCO portal is a traffic

11 tool, there is a lot of regional data and

12 one of the things we can start to talk

13 about is how could we start to focus down

14 and bring more state-based data onto that

15 portal. That's a big lift but something

16 we should start thinking about that

17 requires a lot of issues regarding

18 compatibility and scale and so forth, but

19 there is work happening with the

20 stakeholders that are not being captured.

21 How do we do that? I'll stop there, but

22 those are key issues that are rolling

23 around in my mind.

24 MS. CANTRAL: Mark? Laura. Mark?

25 MS. McKAY: I want to remind

81

1 everyone and RPB members and public on

2 the portal there is a nice location that

3 needs priorities and a feedback button on

4 that page. There is a built-in mechanism

5 and I hope people will use that to say

6 when you identify a data layer you were

7 on the portal going to that data, needs

8 data priority section, hit that feedback

9 button and type it in what it is you are

10 looking for and like to see.

11 That's a way starting to collect in

12 one place what those needs are, what are

13 those issues, whether it's, you know,

14 more fine scale shipping information or

15 if it's a state beta layer you have that

16 would be suitable for the portal we have

17 that built in to collect those ideas.

18 So I think that's a good start for

19 this, and then once we have those in

20 there in an organized fashion, I think

21 MARCO can work with the RPB and negotiate

22 how are we going to get those data

23 layers, where will we find the funding to

24 get that data done. I wanted to make

25 that reminder.

82

1 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you for that.

2 So, I think we are at a point if

3 someone else has something, those of you

4 have your cards up have already spoken.

5 So I think we'll adjourn for lunch, and I

6 think what I heard in the last round of

7 comments about Gwynne's presentation and

8 offer from MARCO is that the synergies

9 between the two MARCO and the RPB are

10 going to be essential for a number of

11 reasons, the fact that this work is

12 underway, the kind of institutional and

13 relationship that MARCO already possesses

14 and the fact that resources and

15 leveraging resources is always going to

16 be essential in times of limited budget.

17 So, I'm hearing that the offer from

18 MARCO is very much appreciated, the

19 nature of that relationship is going to

20 continue to evolve, and you are right,

21 Greg, some of the things related to

22 stakeholder engagement. We'll get into

23 even this afternoon to talk about some

24 ideas regarding what could structure look

25 like, and I think for now we should all

83

1 take a break and go have some lunch and

2 come back and resume those discussions at

3 1:00 o'clock.

4 For those of you in the public

5 joining us, lunch opportunities I'm told,

6 the best -- your best option is at the

7 MaGill Commons building which is just

8 across the way. And there is a map if

9 you don't know where to go. Stop at the

10 front desk and get a map and go enjoy

11 some lunch and join us again for more

12 good discussion starting at 1:00 p.m.

13 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess

14 was taken at 12:00 p.m.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84

1 (Whereupon, the meeting

2 resumes at 1:10 p.m.)

3 MS. CANTRAL: I think we are ready

4 to get started. Welcome to those of you

5 that were with us this morning and those

6 of you with us now this afternoon.

7 We have been joined by an

8 additional person, by the regional

9 planning party, and when you were

10 introducing yourself -- I would like to

11 call on Karen Chytalo to introduce

12 herself and get back right into our a

13 general.

14 MS. CHYTALO: I'm Karen Chytalo

15 with the New York State Department of

16 Conservation, the Bureau of Marine

17 Research Services working out of Eastern

18 Long Island, Eastern Setauket. I'm the

19 assistant chief of marine resources. I

20 appreciate being here today, and we do

21 have a nice crowd and hope we have a nice

22 diverse crowd of different stakeholders

23 to join us on this day.

24 One of the questions we were asked

25 originally to look at had to do with what

85

1 we want for from ocean planning and I

2 think it's high time that we do plan.

3 It's makes a whole lot of sense. It's

4 practical. There is a lot of activities

5 going on and a lot of users and people

6 who just want to appreciate the sound,

7 ocean. The ocean can't take all of the

8 activity you have -- we have to work

9 together to see what is going to be our

10 vision. I hope one of the outcomes of

11 this meeting is we do have a nice and

12 good shared vision amongst all of the

13 stakeholders, as well as the regional

14 planning body and that will be good. We

15 have firm goals and know what we are

16 driving towards and can really get our

17 feet on the ground and do something, we

18 do come up with a regional plan for the

19 Mid-Atlantic. It's an important body of

20 water and important for our stakeholders

21 and resource holders and our resources we

22 need to have a good body of water out

23 there. Thank you very much.

24 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. And

25 you -- first of all, your comments have

86

1 been shared by many of the colleagues

2 that said similar things this morning,

3 and second of all, you set me up well to

4 introduce the next session, which I would

5 like to do now and turn to a discussion

6 of the initial draft, regional ocean

7 planning goals that have been under

8 development.

9 You are aware from Mo described

10 this morning that the RPB has broken

11 itself up into several working groups to

12 jump start the thinking and to have some

13 ideas to present in this forum for full

14 brief discussion, and those groups have

15 focused on different aspects of the work

16 before you, and among them is the

17 development of goals for regional ocean

18 planning and objectives, whether or not

19 you need to have a statement, a vision

20 that goes along with that and other

21 aspects that Doug Pabst, as one of the

22 co-champions, along with Greg Capobianco

23 will describe for you.

24 So, let me outline -- this is going

25 to be the part of the agenda where we see

87

1 how the environment works starting a

2 discussion, getting into that discussion,

3 taking a break, hearing public comment

4 and coming back to the discussion.

5 So, it's going to require some

6 careful navigation and some of the

7 attention by all of us to track the many

8 lines of discussion and questions that we

9 want to put on the table and have some

10 good dialogue, and part of that is to

11 keep -- my job to keep us all organized,

12 and before I turn it over to Doug, let me

13 point out a couple things regarding

14 timing.

15 We are starting a little bit late,

16 that's fine. We've got a good amount of

17 time to get through this afternoon. But

18 at 2:00 o'clock, wherever we are, we are

19 going to stop for our public comment

20 section. That's what we advertised we

21 will do and pick back up where we left

22 off and keep going.

23 Doug, you'll get your ten minutes,

24 I promise.

25 MR. PABST: I need 15. (Laughter.)

88

1 MS. CANTRAL: It's important to

2 underscore the discussion the RPB is

3 having about a few things related to

4 goals, development and geographic goals,

5 the framework for developing its regional

6 ocean planning goals, including what kind

7 of stakeholder engagement the RPB wants

8 to have in finalizing those goals and

9 further shaking the details.

10 So framework in the process is one

11 thing, a discussion, a focus on the

12 substantial of the initial goals that

13 have been identified and there is a

14 heritage of where that all came from that

15 we can talk about, but to reflect on that

16 and identify a process for finalizing.

17 Then we'll move to a discussion

18 about the geographic focus. As I said,

19 pause for public comment, whenever

20 2:00 o'clock arrives, and we resume the

21 discussion and wrap up before we move to

22 our next topics which is stakeholder

23 engagement.

24 Does that make sense?

25 So, Doug, off to you.

89

1 MR. PABST: Thank you. I'm still

2 Doug Pabst from EPA, and welcome back

3 from lunch. I seem to go after lunch.

4 I'm not sure how that works. I want to

5 thank the co-leads for that leadership

6 and acknowledge my colleagues and the RPB

7 in general in making this happen, that --

8 give a shout out to Greg, New York State

9 rocks and Meridian for helping to make

10 stuff happen.

11 We have limited resources, we need

12 to be strategic as possible. We can't do

13 everything. We need to figure out what

14 we can do and what are the most important

15 areas to focus on. You are going to see

16 in the presentations some of the thinking

17 to get the RPB's input and public's

18 input, whether or not it wants to develop

19 a vision, which Karen set up for that

20 lovely segue, and a robust discussion

21 about goals and priorities that can be

22 approved and implemented in the future,

23 and this can serve as a foundation for

24 the work plan we talked about earlier on

25 in the different boxes in the chart

90

1 that's outside as well.

2 Just to get even more boring, let's

3 talk about terminology. That's obviously

4 something we all found that people mean

5 different things when they say different

6 things. What we have up here is what we

7 consider the definitions of these items

8 to be and my apologies to Merriam

9 Webster. They are not perfect, but to

10 give us a common understanding.

11 Vision is a desired future state

12 and the goal is a statement of general

13 direction or intent. Again higher-level

14 principal, little lower level, but a

15 quality or element determining the

16 intrinsic nature of characteristic

17 behavior of ocean planning. And

18 objective is a statement of a desired

19 outcome or observable behavioral change

20 that represents the achievement after

21 goal.

22 Somebody mentioned metrics before,

23 that is a step towards that particular

24 item as well.

25 Now, possible next steps, and this

91

1 is sort of getting into the what we

2 discussed earlier we can do would be does

3 the RPB want to develop a vision? Do we

4 want to develop a some of the principles

5 for achieving growth and government

6 coordination and efficiency and the full

7 range of interest to account using the

8 best data and information available and

9 after we develop goals and principles, we

10 can start drilling down to objective and

11 actions to achieve those goals and

12 principals.

13 Laura mentioned that we've got some

14 questions that have -- are going to be

15 layered in and this talks about questions

16 for the RPB and for the public.

17 Does the RPB wish to articulate a

18 high-level vision for the route they are

19 hoping a achieve through regional ocean

20 planning, if so will we craft a vision

21 statement as next step? We'll come back

22 to that as Laura mentioned.

23 Now, thoughts about goals. I want

24 to know how the group decided to take

25 this date. This has been in discussion

92

1 form for years and maybe years before

2 that, but really everything is sort of

3 coming together now. The criteria we had

4 in mind, including things like what

5 aspects we heard about regional ocean

6 planning in the past, what desired

7 outcomes have we heard that rise to the

8 level of a vision or would be more

9 appropriate as principles or even

10 objectives. That was a filter we

11 applied. We want to identify ideas about

12 goals that would benefit everybody, not

13 just specific interests or localized

14 parochial areas for example. And we

15 wanted to achieve balance.

16 I think we've heard that word a lot

17 about boosting economic growth and

18 natural commercial and protecting and

19 restoring ecosystem health which we view

20 as interlinked and the examination uses a

21 new proposed use of the ocean. We want

22 to identify areas that we think are

23 achievable and we don't want to set

24 ourselves up for failure and we want to

25 maximum compatibility.

93

1 And I appreciate the input I got

2 from -- input I got from stakeholder

3 prior to that and we've had many

4 opportunities, and again, all of us have

5 been at this for years and heard a lot of

6 input over the years.

7 I wanted to touch base on what was

8 business based on the 2013 MARCO work.

9 We want to improve government efficiency

10 and function improving stakeholder

11 engagement, a lot of similar themes

12 throughout a lot of this, maintain access

13 for fisherman and recreational users,

14 protect ecosystem health, resolve ocean

15 space use, improving shipping efficiency

16 and navigation facilitating offshore

17 entity and military readiness, adapting

18 to changing conditions, having scientific

19 basis for ocean planning and establishing

20 metrics of success. A lot of

21 commonalities among the stakeholder group

22 on these areas.

23 And this is what the ocean policy

24 had said. You can see a lot of

25 similarities. I'm not going to read

94

1 through all of these, very similar,

2 everybody wants to do similar things

3 which is really good.

4 Now, here is our first shot. It's

5 in draft, Mid-Atlantic RPB goals.

6 Hopefully we'll have robust conversations

7 or unanimous consent and a lot of

8 yielding that goes along with it. We put

9 the definition on the bottom in case you

10 forgot what we mean by goal. I know I

11 have.

12 We wanted to start with

13 facilitating responsible renewable energy

14 protecting habitats and ecosystem

15 functionality, ensuring existing

16 traditional uses, ensuring sufficient

17 access to ports and retaining areas for

18 military testing, training and

19 operations. We need to keep in mind that

20 to achieve meaningful benefits within a

21 reasonable time frame in the context of

22 constrained resources, that's a mouthful,

23 meaning, we are not going to get any more

24 money and hold onto what we have, and we

25 need to do this in a time frame that

95

1 people will believe and stay committed to

2 the cause.

3 These are consistent with the

4 National Ocean Policy keeping our

5 resources in trust for all Americans.

6 Again, some other questions to

7 discuss, looking at the definitions we've

8 offered for planning and terminology and

9 list of initial draft goals. Is the RPB

10 comfortable with regional ocean planning

11 goals at this scale and level of detail?

12 Do any of the initial draft goals need to

13 be modified? If so, how?

14 Again, if there is other questions

15 that pop up, we are trying to get the

16 ball rolling here. We also talk about

17 hazard resilience. I think we hear the

18 word resiliency quite a bit and seems to

19 be a term everybody is throwing around.

20 Climate change is getting a lot of

21 attention. It's good to see it's here

22 and needs to be part of this

23 conversation, and Tony eloquently laid

24 out this morning this is a region still

25 hurting, hidden hurt and recovery going

96

1 on. We need to adapt to that an changing

2 climate and figure out how to deal with

3 the future hazards and threats and

4 whatever term you like to use. We need

5 to weave that into everything we are

6 doing and need to have discussion about

7 exactly what that means.

8 Based on everything we heard to

9 date, this is what we've come up, and

10 again I've got the definition on the

11 bottom so people can remember in the

12 context of our discussions. We want to

13 increase government coordination and

14 efficiency. If we can do that, we would

15 be happy. Improve stakeholder engagement

16 and everyone feels confident we need to

17 do that, and it's important. I'm happy

18 to hear that. Provide for current and

19 future ocean uses probably going to have

20 some conversations about that.

21 Use the best existing and new ocean

22 data to provide a shared scientific

23 foundation for ocean planning and

24 improving decision-making.

25 Again, principles are defined -- we

97

1 can go back if we need to, and the

2 question is for us to consider, again, do

3 any of these draft principles need to be

4 modified? If so, how? And I think

5 that's transition point.

6 I'll turn it over to Laura.

7 MS. CANTRAL: All right. Thank

8 you, Doug, and thank you to the work

9 group that put together the thinking on

10 this, and what I would like to do is try

11 to bring attention back to some of the

12 questions that Doug posed, not that these

13 are the only questions, but to get us

14 started in the dialogue and try to track

15 it sort of in the sequence of the way

16 that information was presented, which, as

17 you'll recall, the -- he started with an

18 overview of the planning terminology, and

19 many of you are planners in this room and

20 you know there are all kinds of

21 definitions for these terms in a planning

22 process. You can spend a lot of time

23 arguing about definitions and putting

24 together different kinds of frameworks,

25 but this is one and it acknowledges there

98

1 are elements of a planning process that

2 should be accounted for and this work

3 group took some time to parse out what

4 you all have been hearing in the

5 stakeholder workshop in April and MARCO

6 meetings and federal agency meetings that

7 took place before that and going back to

8 2009 when there was a regional workshop

9 here to talk about the kinds of issues

10 that we are still talking about today.

11 So, you know what? I said we may

12 not need to go back to the slides, but it

13 would be helpful to go back to your

14 definitions. Not that we need to have a

15 conversation about all of these

16 definitions, but just since one of the

17 questions that Doug and the work group

18 have put on together and are asking of

19 you is and I think we know what Karen

20 thinks about this question about a

21 vision.

22 Do you want to articulate a

23 high-level vision for the future that the

24 RPB is hoping to achieve through this

25 process, something that is achievable

99

1 that ocean planning contribute to, is

2 that something you would like to commit

3 to doing, and if so, then let's have some

4 discussion about how you would go about

5 doing. I'm opening for some comments on

6 that point, Joe?

7 MR. ATANGAN: I guess the first

8 thing that comes to mind is isn't there a

9 vision statement already articulated in

10 the National Ocean Policy? And the

11 question would be why do we need a

12 separate vision? Shouldn't that be the

13 overarching one and the goals and

14 principles and objectives would be in

15 support of that vision or articulated?

16 MS. CANTRAL: So --

17 MR. ATANGAN: That's --

18 MS. CANTRAL: -- a reasonable

19 approach, again, to back to a comment and

20 exchange we had earlier to a question

21 about the handbook. There is -- that

22 stuff exists as part of the National

23 Ocean Policy, and the National Ocean

24 Policy with regard to regional ocean

25 planning provides for applicability.

100

1 The question might be do you want

2 to look at that decide that that even

3 captures it for you or do you want in

4 some way to simplify that or add to it?

5 I think that my hunch, working with you

6 folks is that you don't want -- you are

7 not going to have much aptitude for a

8 long envisioning process. Those things

9 can be time consuming and take a lot of

10 energy, and there is probably a better

11 way, and maybe Joe's approach is

12 something that could be a reasonable way

13 to have that included as part of this

14 framework. Doug?

15 MR. PABST: Yes. Thanks.

16 Clearly, we would start there given

17 the discussions that have happened over

18 the course of getting to this point. I

19 think we probably would want to put some

20 qualifiers in that statement and focus

21 more, but I don't think it's going to

22 require months of work to look at that,

23 at least I hope it doesn't. That is

24 something for the RPB to decide if they

25 wanted to accept the national statement

101

1 or they wanted to drill down a little

2 bit, which I think there was an interest

3 in many of our calls to do that, but we

4 would start with the national vision at a

5 minimum.

6 MS. CANTRAL: Right. Other

7 thoughts? Frank?

8 MR. MACH: I would also say I think

9 the vision is very well-outlined for us,

10 but jumping maybe ahead of myself, I

11 think the goals are -- am I ahead of

12 myself?

13 MS. CANTRAL: You are.

14 MR. MACH: In advance of goals we

15 have in mind have been discussed in

16 numerous times over the various meetings

17 and I think they are brought enough in

18 a -- with, you know, as we --

19 MS. CANTRAL: Right.

20 MR. MACH: I can skip my time.

21 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. Duly noted.

22 (Laughter)

23 We want to get to that soon. I

24 want to hear and need some sense of a

25 group that you are comfortable with.

102

1 This idea of simplified approach to

2 including a vision, articulating a vision

3 as part of this framework and if so, next

4 step for how to do that.

5 You were about to comment?

6 MS. SCHULTZ: Starting out with the

7 vision to make sure we spend some time to

8 make sure it's relevant, all of it is

9 relevant to our region, and that I do

10 like the idea of shorter process, simple

11 one-page vision, not anything really,

12 really going to take a long time, and

13 then going to put that out for some

14 public input, but keeping it short,

15 concise and relevant.

16 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. I'm seeing

17 some nodding. Let me try this: What I'm

18 hearing is that you like this general

19 approach, so perhaps the next step would

20 be for the work group and the staff team.

21 I'm saying this with -- my caveat here is

22 we are going to have more discussion

23 about the composites of work groups and

24 functionality of the work groups, exactly

25 who takes this next step would be an open

103

1 question for the moment, but putting that

2 aside, the next step would be to

3 develop -- develop a first draft,

4 circulate that among all of you for some

5 review and comment, and then take it out

6 to some public review or comment and that

7 we would be folding the idea would be to

8 fold this into the package of goals and

9 later on objectives, actions and other

10 things that would be developed as this

11 matures. Folks okay with that?

12 (Chorus of ayes.)

13 MS. CANTRAL: All right. Good.

14 So, with regard to -- I think we

15 are now ready to turn to where you want

16 to go, Frank --

17 MR. MACH: Yes.

18 MS. CANTRAL: -- with regard to the

19 initial draft goals.

20 Is there anything else before we

21 talk about the substance of the goals?

22 Is there anything else that people have

23 on their minds regarding this framework

24 of how the work group is defining what

25 the goals are that are fairly

104

1 substantive? Things that are more

2 process-oriented kind of goals you could

3 call them goals. Those are reflected as

4 principles in their construct and

5 objectives and things you are acting

6 going to do that are appreciable,

7 achievable timely, et cetera, that are

8 going to be how you operationalize the

9 goal.

10 Is everyone comfortable with that

11 framework?

12 (Chorus of ayes.)

13 MS. CANTRAL: So, let's turn to the

14 work group's substance of ideas about the

15 goals, and I think it's important to keep

16 in mind that an objective of this

17 discussion is to refine these initially

18 as you see fit so that you all are

19 comfortable with taking these ideas out

20 for some stakeholder input, and that may

21 mean you want to include as part of your

22 discussions some ideas or examples of

23 what those objectives might be just so

24 people know how are we actually doing

25 this kind of thing now that you made a

105

1 decision about it, but to give people

2 enough to react to and have some good

3 discussions.

4 I think part of what we are going

5 to talk about later that afternoon when

6 we really get into stakeholder

7 engagement, how to engage the

8 stakeholders around the development of

9 goals and objectives.

10 Frank started us off with one

11 reflection on the goals as they are

12 articulated here, but I would like to

13 hear other thoughts about what you see

14 here and what the work is presented.

15 John?

16 MR. WALTERS: The first goal

17 facilitates responsible renewable energy

18 development, may be too limiting as the

19 pro stated all of the above and though we

20 are focused on renewable energy with

21 offshore wind development, apparently

22 New York, New Jersey are entertaining an

23 import or export of L and G. There is

24 potential of fossil fuel development

25 offshore and other renewable -- nuclear

106

1 is also on line in the State of New

2 Jersey as a couple nuclear reactors went

3 on the coastline, I believe. Are we

4 being too limited by saying renewable

5 energy development and not including all

6 other --

7 MS. BORNHOLDT: We may be too

8 limiting not coming from the point of

9 energy development. We had Super Storm

10 Sandy. I know there is incredible

11 effort. Many of us around the table are

12 being involved with being able to use

13 sand resources and offshore resources in

14 coast restoration should it be ocean

15 energy and not so it's just food for

16 thought.

17 MS. McKAY: It's not my personal

18 view but I have to say, but in

19 representing the Commonwealth of

20 Virginia, our governor wishes to proceed

21 with offshore oil development and a

22 couple months left in his administration

23 and there will be an election in

24 November. So I'm not sure where that

25 will head. I have to make that comment

107

1 for Virginia.

2 MR. ROSEN: Not all states share

3 that opinion.

4 MR. PABST: That is when you put a

5 bullet on a page. There should be a page

6 that accompanies the bullet. Some of

7 these things might be better phrased, but

8 clearly for existing uses and regulatory

9 authorities that is sort of part of the

10 ensuring access and we continue to do

11 that the hazard resilience effects

12 looking at existing structure, but to

13 facilitate responsible renewable energy

14 was -- development was part of the newer

15 challenges to avoid figuring out some of

16 the conflicts that seem to be arising.

17 All of this was discussed during the work

18 group deliberations.

19 This may not be the best language

20 to discuss those things is my point. You

21 are not trying to take a stand before any

22 particular action. We were trying to lay

23 out themes that we had heard through the

24 president's plan or stakeholders and

25 things.

108

1 MS. CANTRAL: All right. We've got

2 several people who want to chime in.

3 I've have Joe, Tom, Karen, Greg. Take it

4 in that order. Joe?

5 MR. ATANGAN: I certainly

6 appreciate the political winds that you

7 know might prompt some of these --

8 achieving some of these goals. As we

9 proceed down this process, we need to put

10 those things aside a little bit and look

11 at it from a non-political perspective.

12 So, yes, alternative energy is

13 right now and fossil fuels are not, but

14 we may -- that may not always be the

15 case. We need to be somewhat flexible in

16 how we articulate, you know, what our

17 goal statements are. Even though it's

18 unpopular right now and governors will

19 disagree, what is the prudent thing to do

20 we need to set that aside and look at it

21 as we are doing this.

22 This is not a political process.

23 We have to base it on what the scientific

24 now what -- it's got to be science based

25 and what, you know, planning for future

109

1 uses. What's not popular now may be

2 popular later on and we may be adaptive

3 to that. So certainly I agree with Mo in

4 that maybe it should be limited to just

5 energy use. It could be total ocean

6 development for, you know, as the phrase

7 in there, to allow us to -- remember,

8 these are high-level goals which they are

9 subsets and objectives that we are going

10 to have to plan for.

11 MS. CANTRAL: Tom?

12 MR. BIGFORD: To me the key word is

13 responsible and like Joe I'm thinking

14 beyond that. You can fill in the blank

15 afterwards. What's new about -- what's

16 so tantalizing about renewable energy it

17 is rare. There is a new sector that

18 develops. It's rare. We have an

19 opportunity to do something responsible

20 from the beginning, more responsible than

21 we've done in the past. In the past we

22 have been responsible according to the

23 metrics of that time, but now we have

24 higher expectations for us and the

25 sector. So whether it's floating

110

1 airports, floating nuclear energy plants

2 or whatever exists elsewhere in the

3 world, we want to be more responsible

4 about it now than we would have been in

5 the past. That's our challenge and

6 that's with we have to do.

7 So for me, the way it's worded is

8 good, but I like Joe's approach. We want

9 to be more responsible for anything that

10 happens in the Mid-Atlantic, but

11 renewables is our first opportunity to

12 show that, wind power especially.

13 MS. CANTRAL: Right. Karen?

14 MS. CHYTALO: I agree with you,

15 Tom. This will be the first time we are

16 showing that we are pro or we want to

17 help make this new type of energy occur.

18 There have been other supporters of the

19 other type of energy and there is a

20 moratorium for no oil and gas exploration

21 out in the Mid-Atlantic. That would be a

22 major change in policy if we promote

23 anything along that line. I like to say

24 responsible in development.

25 I like what Maureen said, minerals

111

1 management, too. That's another avenue

2 that we have to examine to make sure we

3 are using those precious resources out

4 there near shore and offshore and in the

5 oceanic sand resources out there and that

6 would be a responsible use, too, or

7 materials management development.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Do you want to

9 respond just to that point?

10 MR. BIGFORD: Just make the

11 comment, sand resources is a euphemism

12 for habitat and protecting habitat means

13 protecting the sand that might be mined.

14 It's just not a resource that would be

15 harvested, it's habitat that would be

16 taken.

17 MS. CHYTALO: That's why we would

18 have to have ensuring that we are

19 protected to be responsible in how it's

20 used. No. 1, we have to be good stewards

21 of the ocean. That's something we have

22 to demonstrate, good stewards, and taking

23 care of the ocean and we are protecting

24 the habitats and ecosystems and making

25 sure they function and resources can

112

1 migrate up and down the coast without

2 getting stuck in the way or -- and we

3 have to ensure those migratory corridors

4 are open and clear. That comes first.

5 And see how we fit into some of these

6 other resources minimize the conflict

7 between those type of things.

8 That's why I think it's important

9 to keep that word responsible in there to

10 ensure, you know, but also we are looking

11 for -- we have to think of about the

12 future of other resources. Do we need to

13 have those oceanic drawer areas? That is

14 a possibility. Rather than nearshore

15 area that's where we are in.

16 MR. BIGFORD: Sand harvest.

17 MS. CHYTALO: We have a lot of --

18 that have not been perfect. Now, there

19 are issues that's -- let's put it that

20 way. We have to explore beyond that and

21 start looking at some other types of

22 things, but at the same time ensuring

23 those habitats. I don't think these

24 things stand alone. These goals have to

25 work together.

113

1 MS. CANTRAL: That's right. I was

2 going to point that out, but thank you

3 for making that comment.

4 MR. CAPOBIANCO: This is getting

5 fun already, getting fun already. I will

6 just be frank because that's how I am.

7 Actually I'm Greg because -- (Laughter)

8 I guess this body, we all have our own

9 jobs and responsibilities. I represent

10 the State of New York. State of New York

11 does have a moratorium on offshore gas.

12 We are not interested in wasting or

13 spending time with offshore oil and gas

14 in this forum. This is for shared ocean

15 issues. There are plenty of shared good

16 ocean issues we can work on in regards to

17 language the faux pas we made, was not to

18 put up offshore wind. That's the

19 challenge of the day and exciting

20 challenge in the wind. All five states

21 are engaged and working towards it. This

22 body can help make it move forward.

23 That's really a very important

24 thing. Meaning, you know, at the end of

25 the day, we have to -- may have a mine

114

1 field of goals between what the federal

2 agency partners want, what the states are

3 bringing to the table and what the

4 stakeholders are asking and the

5 constituents are asking.

6 I made some notes. I'll put them

7 out here at the risk of being

8 provocative. At the end of the day,

9 New York -- we are looking to get

10 something out of this process. Starts

11 with the development of goals. We want

12 to work cooperatively and productively

13 towards achieving the goals. The first

14 goal is about jobs and clean energy. And

15 I think what we know has is contemplating

16 is seeking some kind of relief or way to

17 reduce timeframes and costs of permitting

18 to move offshore and renewable wind

19 forward, and it's no fault of anybody's

20 that the previous mess has taken

21 regulations that were designed for oil

22 and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

23 and operating under that same rubric for

24 offshore wind. Maybe we can do this a

25 little bit smoother and faster and

115

1 generate a regional industry.

2 On the offshore habitat, sides

3 extremely committed to fisheries. We

4 need to start with the canyons because it

5 makes a lot of sense to me. That's the

6 place where there is structure and a lot

7 of diversity and place we are having a

8 lot of ocean discovery right now. And

9 that's another way of protecting and

10 maintaining jobs that are important to

11 New York.

12 The third piece, these are -- what

13 I'm trying to do is demonstrate the

14 consistency or connection of a particular

15 state's goals are compared to what's up

16 and the federal half said and stakeholder

17 have said and third is commerce. It's

18 job, navigation safety and maritime

19 industry growth. We have a Panama Canal

20 being widened, things are going to

21 change, not just large ports, but short

22 sea shipping and a whole range of

23 maritime-related industry job growth,

24 opportunities we should be thinking about

25 in trying to figure out how to grow that

116

1 and facilitate ramping that up and moving

2 that for the last piece which we touched

3 on, the sand. The idea Doug touched on,

4 resiliency, touching everything New York

5 and New Jersey in particular, but, you

6 know, resiliency is not something new to

7 the Mid-Atlantic states.

8 One of the -- to me, one of the key

9 things is I understand the sand habitats,

10 but there is a great need in New York for

11 sand. A lot of smart discussions already

12 have taken place right now thinking about

13 what makes the most sense where would we

14 take sand? What are the latest

15 technologies we need to take sand? How

16 can we do that in a way to protect to the

17 best of our ability offshore habitats and

18 enhances and protects current natural

19 properties. See, for example, moving

20 offshore, as Karen suggested and taking

21 the sand deeper off, further off the

22 coast you might be allowing some of those

23 articles sand repels slowly and naturally

24 replenish beaches.

25 I don't want to be long winded, but

117

1 there is a lot of things on the table and

2 a lot of things New York is interested in

3 getting on the table, and the goals are a

4 good start.

5 I'm anxious to try to craft a

6 language we agree on and I'm really

7 interested in hearing stakeholders today

8 and as we go forward what the people have

9 to say. We have to get the goals right

10 now before we start doing anything else

11 productive. I'll stop there, but thank

12 you for the time.

13 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you, Frank.

14 MR. MACH: It sounds like the way

15 it's written or focused on renewable

16 energy, dropping renewable you can cover

17 all of the energy possibilities that

18 might come along for us to consider we

19 become more general.

20 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Yes.

21 MS. COOKSEY: I was going to move

22 us on, but Greg had done a good job, but

23 specifically No. 2, I don't think it's

24 enough to protect habitats and ecosystem

25 functionality. I think the ecosystem is

118

1 beginning to break or is already broken

2 and I think we should have words such as

3 improve or restore as well as protect.

4 MS. CANTRAL: Okay.

5 MS. CHYTALO: Well, yes. I want to

6 agree with Sarah, some habitats have been

7 affected out in the ocean and what can we

8 do to protect them more or do things to

9 bring them into some sort of restoration.

10 We have restoration of the historic

11 site, dredged material site out in the

12 ocean right now and that's been restored

13 in a sense changing the quality of the

14 sand and contaminants. There are things

15 we can do with a lot of our projects and

16 protect and improve and restore. They

17 are very important words we should be

18 putting out there.

19 I have one question with that goal

20 when we talk about ecosystem

21 functionality we are talking about -- I

22 mentioned earlier the corridors,

23 migration corridors, moving up and down

24 the coast that are very important to our

25 states that you know we utilize in and's

119

1 resource fisherman are using those

2 resources. How can we assure they have

3 that access to is that clearly

4 articulated in that goal the way it is

5 stated right now. I'm just not sure we

6 can what words we put in there to enhance

7 that.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Sarah, just a

9 clarification to your point. When you

10 said that you -- it's your view that

11 habitats doesn't capture it all, it's

12 broader than that. Can you talk a little

13 bit more?

14 MS. COOKSEY: The word -- my issue

15 was protect. Fishing is down, we know

16 there is contamination and there is a lot

17 that we don't know.

18 Also, since I have the floor, on

19 the second bullet, I don't think we

20 should leave the words fishing and

21 recreation to just -- to just the EG.

22 It's important to -- more important

23 enough to not have them in the

24 parentheses and somehow back to the

25 vision. We need to capture what is

120

1 unique about our region, the people, the

2 fishing and military.

3 MS. CANTRAL: That may be the

4 detail you can add looking at the

5 national statement and customize it to be

6 presenting what is unique and important

7 about your region so then it's not that's

8 one opportunity.

9 And your point, what kind of words

10 we need to think about to capture your

11 idea. So keep in mind what you are

12 talking about right now are some broad

13 goals, statements, a definition for that

14 that's reflective of this broadness, and

15 part of what we want to get out of our

16 discussion today is are you comfortable

17 enough with this set given that you got

18 some ideas for some refinement and you --

19 there is some discussion about your

20 references for the way they are written

21 right now, but are they generally

22 capturing what you want to take out to

23 have some public engagement about and

24 hear more about the ideas both at the

25 ideas you are referring with each other

121

1 and ideas that are going to be offered to

2 you that I may haven't even considered

3 yet.

4 The notion that one of you is, I

5 think, more than 16 you have articulated

6 this is -- that this set of goals and

7 this process overall is about identifying

8 what this group and this process can do

9 to address some common needs and

10 opportunities that all of the

11 Mid-Atlantic states share, and they are

12 not going to be all of the needs and

13 opportunities every region -- it's making

14 a decision where you can start and add

15 value to seizing the opportunities,

16 whether it's wind -- wind or other things

17 and addressing things and some critical

18 problems like habitats. So, who is --

19 Marty?

20 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Yes, I think you

21 captured it, the last bit of your

22 remarks. I wanted to remind people,

23 again, there is a thing -- saying in my

24 office called one is the boil down and

25 what are we going to do? And, you know,

122

1 we need to do some boiling down, and I

2 think just another way of -- I think

3 saying what you were going, Laura, which

4 is I am not interested in telling any

5 state what they should be doing or

6 suggesting what federal agencies should

7 be expending capital on, but in this

8 forum we should be spending our capital

9 on things that are shared costs in the

10 region. It won't be everything everybody

11 wants to do so therein lies the challenge

12 of the boil down we have to get there.

13 MS. CANTRAL: So, Marty and John

14 and Gwynne.

15 MR. ROSEN: I believe past

16 resilience there has been some, yet there

17 is no goal about resilience. Is that a

18 conscious decision, Doug --

19 MR. PABST: That was in the fact

20 that everything we do has got to keep

21 this particular action in place. Not

22 meaning we need to add one, but there was

23 a conversation, discussion -- not

24 decision, but there was a conscious

25 decision limit -- this has to be part of

123

1 all of our handling habitat or geared

2 towards future threats and resiliency.

3 That is something the group should talk

4 about. If we need a specific resilience

5 towards the climate goal we can do that.

6 It was all ingrained in our planning. We

7 needed to make that an overarching part

8 of our thought process.

9 MS. CANTRAL: All right. John, you

10 are up.

11 MR. WALTERS: Regarding marine

12 transportation, I believe the word was

13 sufficient access? I would suggest we

14 place that -- efficient and safe. It

15 means -- efficient means you can go

16 hundreds of miles but it's not efficient

17 and very safe.

18 MS. SCHULTZ: I just encourage us

19 and we get into the discussion of the

20 goals that we have now is that we

21 continually look back at one of the

22 slides that Doug put forth about the

23 thoughts of the goals and use that as

24 some of our own criteria, and those were

25 goals that benefit the entire region, not

124

1 just the specific geographic area or

2 sector to consider the values of existing

3 and proposed uses a potentially

4 achievable and maximize capability and

5 making sure we are comfortable with those

6 and quote/unquote criteria and modify

7 those and always keep them right in front

8 of us as we engage in this dialogue.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Marty?

10 MR. ROSEN: Just to complete the

11 thought on resilience, even though -- it

12 has resilience, should be an overarching

13 goal to influence decision-making unless

14 it's not a goal it -- it's not going to

15 be. I think history of the region what's

16 happening, I think it -- I think it's--

17 means obvious omission not to have some

18 goal coastal hazards.

19 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. So, Doug,

20 my suggestion at this point we move into

21 the next part of this discussion, which

22 is the geographic focus for the planning

23 effort, and then see where we are with

24 timing. We may then take a pause to go

25 to public comment. See where we are with

125

1 this entire discussion and what we need

2 to do next.

3 Does that make sense?

4 MR. PABST: Sure.

5 Let's talk about the where.

6 MR. NOBLE: It's always about the

7 where, the location. I would like to

8 think we have agreement we clearly have

9 the best regional planning body out of

10 all of them. (Laughter)

11 MR. PABST: I would like to say we

12 were done, but moving on.

13 What do we mean when we said

14 Mid-Atlantic region? Climate change,

15 dealings and other dealings people, draw

16 lines in a lot of different places over

17 the years. We need to be focused and

18 specific about the areas and things we

19 are talking about. I mentioned earlier

20 on that the broad scope of this region is

21 defined by the national ocean framework,

22 which is north, south, New York,

23 New Jersey Pennsylvania, Delaware,

24 Maryland and Virginia, and then going out

25 into the ocean from the edge of land,

126

1 which there will probably some discussion

2 out to the exclusive economic zone on 200

3 nautical mile area which technically all

4 of the United States jurisdiction ends

5 at. That's where we started.

6 Now, we discussed earlier during

7 the goals discussion that we wanted to

8 recognize a focus. There are existing

9 programs and initiatives that provide

10 already for interjurisdictional area as

11 coastal -- we recognize regional planning

12 bodies cannot manage or regulate inland

13 activities estuarial activities may

14 influence the coast regional planning

15 bodies, may be able to provide insight to

16 support initial existing programs to deal

17 with those activities, but on the

18 constrained resources we are again, a lot

19 of people are putting a lot into this to

20 make this happen and we hope we can

21 continue that level of effort, but we

22 need to think apart of where we can add

23 the most value if achieving our economic

24 and conservation goals for our coastal

25 and ocean areas.

127

1 Other considerations we are trying

2 to keep in mind, the need to include

3 recognized ecological and certain

4 jurisdictional boundaries, which are very

5 confusing, and we need to go through this

6 carefully and leverage and build on

7 existing planning efforts and identify a

8 manageable size level of complexity. We

9 want to be successful, but want it to be

10 meaningful.

11 So, we decided we need to think a

12 little bit more about how we might focus

13 our efforts than just similar to the

14 vision outlined by the national ocean

15 implementation plan or framework. We

16 wanted to look and identify the focus

17 area for the Mid-Atlantic. Here are some

18 of our thoughts: Include state and

19 federal waters out to the exclusive

20 economic zone but do not include near

21 estuary area and extend to the Virginia,

22 North Carolina border in the south to the

23 New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island

24 border. We would advise those and

25 influence those other areas we can. This

128

1 was our first area of sort of bringing it

2 down a little bit to see where we can go

3 and open up for questions.

4 Do you agree with the focus

5 described above? If not, explain how you

6 would modify it and other additional

7 considerations to consider in using

8 geographic focus and areas we should

9 focus on other areas and I'll stop there.

10 MS. CANTRAL: Andy?

11 MR. ZEMBA: I would like to address

12 the first question, which is: Do we

13 agree with the geographic focus, and I

14 would say from Pennsylvania we do.

15 Particularly, we feel request the

16 continuing estuary programs and

17 interstate programs. There is no need to

18 go into the estuaries. The states that

19 are represented here can help coordinate

20 with those programs if needed, and the

21 other thing is I want to talk about,

22 support not including the estuarian land

23 and Pennsylvania largely a land area

24 contributing to the Delaware

25 Chesapeake -- Pennsylvania can represent

129

1 concerns and act as a liaison as needed

2 if we get into these type of issues.

3 MS. CANTRAL: Other thoughts about

4 the work group presenting with --

5 MR. NOBLE: One question to me.

6 Might need some clarification. We say do

7 not include near shore estuary area. Do

8 we mean all estuarian area or what would

9 it include that are not near shore?

10 MS. SCHULTZ: Well, first question I

11 was thinking is that it's the larger,

12 like the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay,

13 really largest area that already have

14 three robust programs. I do question

15 about some of the smaller, like seaside

16 bays that are right behind the barrier

17 islands, not larger estuaries that may

18 not have management programs. I thought

19 through this. Well, is that considered

20 one of these large near shore areas or

21 just talking about the larger estuaries?

22 That's open for discussion.

23 MS. CANTRAL: Did you guys take

24 that out?

25 MR. PABST: There was a lot of

130

1 robust discussion and I think we need a

2 little bit more betting to decide either

3 we -- we list everything and then you --

4 I've been in some of these programs. You

5 get down to latitude and longitude. We

6 have to come to some understanding about

7 do you kill the water bodies, and I would

8 say we didn't come to agreement that we

9 would ignore a particular body if it

10 needed attention. We just felt our

11 resources should be focused on areas that

12 do have an estuary program or state or

13 local program or somebody that already

14 was doing there -- didn't have goals

15 established for that particular water

16 body. We would not revisit that and just

17 work in the ocean where we felt there

18 wasn't that government structure and

19 management structure.

20 I -- not knowing every bay between

21 here and -- I think that's why we left it

22 that way, that there would be -- could be

23 a bay or body of water, maybe it's a

24 particular loading that we need to worry

25 about that is not being addressed. I

131

1 think we left it vague. We don't know

2 what we don't know, but we are open to

3 suggestions.

4 MS. CANTRAL: So, Mo and then Joe?

5 MS. BORNHOLDT: I have a question.

6 This was the ultimate card for the course

7 some time some of these goals drive a

8 particular variation of the them when it

9 comes to geographic scope. If we employ

10 the development of offshore wind we can

11 have a wind facility off of (Inaudible)

12 you know, the ocean aspect could be

13 perfect, but if you talk about bringing

14 transmission lines, we don't want to go

15 there. That's where the onshore estuary

16 and initial waters become an issue.

17 Somehow in developing a geographic scope

18 we have to leave ourselves flexibility,

19 talking about what are we talking about.

20 Some of the ocean activities are not

21 ocean bound. They do have some

22 intersection with coastal near shore and

23 upland resources.

24 Second thing, too, I'm also

25 thinking of the sand management issues as

132

1 well. You know, you were talking about

2 when you play with a near shore you are

3 really wreaking havoc if you have an

4 information gathering, if you dredge here

5 or there, some of those we want to be

6 able to tap in to help us understand what

7 the alternative could be or impacts may

8 be, not to say to blow this wide open,

9 but think about how this connection about

10 the goals, the cart before the horse and

11 horse -- horse before the cart and what

12 we've all been discussing.

13 MR. MACH: That was an excellent

14 point. I was remiss of myself not to

15 mention the Army Corp of Engineers

16 received an extremely large amount of

17 money under the -- along the coast as a

18 regional planning body relooked to that

19 study that the Corp of Engineering was

20 doing along the coast with regards to

21 resilience and some of it that expound

22 their -- and a lot of that drivers will

23 be part of that study. We deferred to

24 that as a coastal process issue, and I'm

25 not sure where that is going to go if it

133

1 requires management and dunes and base

2 behind. This was probably one of those

3 examples. The wording needs to be

4 better, but I am looking for input from

5 my colleagues how we can revise this and

6 use.

7 MR. ATANGAN: I'm getting a little

8 worried that Doug mentions they had

9 robust discussion. (Laughter)

10 But I do want to bring folks back

11 to there are two drivers in this thing.

12 First part is the resource piece which is

13 what can we reasonably tackle, and the

14 other piece of this is the word initial.

15 This is our first stab. This is not to

16 say we are going to preclude addressing

17 these other events -- areas downstream,

18 but I think we need to, again, focus on

19 here is what we can do with the resources

20 we have, okay.

21 And also be mindful this is the

22 initial -- we are not precluding

23 addressing the other estuarian areas,

24 whether it be the small or large. So I

25 think we are getting a little bit wrapped

134

1 around. We are not identifying what we

2 are not going to do. What we are

3 identifying what are we going to start

4 with.

5 MR. WALTERS: Just a question

6 concerning the

7 New York/Connecticut/Rhode Island border

8 in the north. I'm not familiar. There

9 is one point which the borders of all

10 three of those states come to --

11 MR. PABST: We've establish --

12 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Yes. If you look

13 at the state boundaries, there is a sort

14 of a point off Montauk Point where

15 Connecticut/New York border --

16 Connecticut/Rhode Island border, touch

17 each other. We are trying to essentially

18 describe it.

19 MR. WALTERS: Fine point.

20 MR. CAPOBIANCO: You'll see it on

21 the map, it shows the state boundaries.

22 MR. ATANGAN: You need a marker for

23 -- (inaudible) Coast Guard would know.

24 MR. CAPOBIANCO: At the risk of

25 being risky, you know, a lot of the

135

1 robustness of our discussion did revolve

2 around our Long Island Sound by which I,

3 personally, in New York maintained that's

4 not particularly a true estuary or

5 embayment or Chesapeake or Delaware Bay.

6 It's a sound, it's marine water open to

7 the ocean by Cape Cod. Like Cape Cod and

8 Nantucket sound we had a lot of

9 discussion and now you start getting into

10 the edges is Haven Rock to the northeast.

11 Planning and activities are underway in

12 New England that do go out to that state

13 line and include Connecticut's

14 Long Island Sound waters.

15 There was discussion about, well,

16 you know, there might be an -- a range of

17 solutions, but we certainly don't want to

18 be -- or east side of Long Island Sound

19 waters. There might be some other ways

20 to tackle that issue. You know, either

21 share issues or just give back on the

22 part of one region to the other saying,

23 you know, one region covers Long Island

24 Sound. So there is a lot of -- when you

25 get to the edges, that's where some of

136

1 the more specific conversations have to

2 happen and a little bit more of a

3 challenging aspect figuring out

4 boundaries if you will.

5 MS. CHYTALO: I was going to raise

6 the point that Greg brought up about

7 including Long Island Sound. Since the

8 end, rock border does not go through the

9 middle of Long Island Sound and includes

10 the northern portion. So the southern

11 portion on the New York side is orphaned

12 or without being a part of either plan

13 body which is kind of weird.

14 One of the things we discussed is

15 what on the phone a few of the

16 conversations of having somewhat more on

17 these kind of edges like this having

18 something of a more flexible boundary

19 depending upon the issue looked at and

20 examined and see therefore you don't

21 discount it, can't be there, but

22 meanwhile the issue is relevant to the

23 discussion. That's inclusive of the

24 whole thing, and so I would rather keep

25 it a soft boundary that it could be

137

1 inclusive if the issue pertains to it,

2 you know, if it does make a -- if it does

3 make a difference, especially if it comes

4 to area pipelines, cables, whatever and

5 all that stuff.

6 MS. CANTRAL: Which is exactly why

7 with work group needs to take up both of

8 these matters developing some initial

9 goals. There is a chicken and egg here.

10 In some instances, particularly in the

11 Long Island Sound instance where you've

12 got two regions coming together, and

13 these processes move together and mature

14 you have to figure out how to coordinate

15 across the region and work the details

16 out. You can't do that until you have a

17 better idea what the goals are that you

18 are headed toward and what are some of

19 the specific objectives you need to

20 address related to those goals.

21 So, just a few things I'm hearing

22 out of this discussion, and let's see if

23 anything --

24 MR. RAMOS: Just really quick.

25 Like any good plan, there is always a

138

1 contingency for boundary changes and

2 whatnot. I think the one concept there

3 is we need to make sure when we develop

4 the process. It allows for those changes

5 to happen.

6 Also, I agree with the whole idea

7 that's up there, particularly with items

8 two and four, but I think it's important

9 to maintain the diversity in the group

10 that you have folks here that do work on

11 some of the other programs, like

12 Chesapeake Bay, and make sure they are at

13 the table, and based on the discussions

14 with folks you've got a good diversity,

15 let's keep it.

16 MS. CANTRAL: Good. Good addition.

17 And it actually is -- speaks to the point

18 I was going to make in offering some

19 summary comments and see if there is

20 anything else you want to add to it.

21 I heard that it's important to be

22 coordinating with existing programs,

23 Chesapeake Bay programs, upland programs,

24 upland programs, other kinds of estuary

25 programs and, Pedro, to your point with

139

1 the expertise around the table and where

2 to go to do that kind of coordinating

3 comes into play, and also related to that

4 is the importance or a whole lot of

5 reason of staying focused where this

6 process can add value and make a

7 contribution for improving the overall

8 health of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean and its

9 economy and livelihood. So being focused

10 on that is important and capacity is only

11 one reason to be keeping that in the

12 forefront.

13 The discussion about both the goals

14 and the geographic focus is an initial

15 discussion. You are going to further vet

16 that through some stakeholder engagement

17 and you are going to further refine that

18 as you have of every understanding, what

19 you want to actually do, particularly

20 with regard to some of these edges issues

21 as Greg referred to them, that may come

22 into sharper focus when you get going

23 further along. In the meantime you are

24 clear it is essentially an ocean-focused

25 effort. That's where you bring your

140

1 value at.

2 Acknowledging some need to be

3 flexible over time and to have to work

4 out some of these questions that are

5 around the edges will be something that I

6 think you all need to be comfortable with

7 and know is going to be part of. As

8 Pedro said, the process, if it's going to

9 be a good process, living process, like

10 you said this morning you want it, will

11 need to adapt and refine over time.

12 Joe, you have your card up.

13 MR. ATANGAN: No, I fell asleep.

14 (Laughter)

15 MS. CANTRAL: This is my attempt to

16 summarize where you are on the focus and

17 bringing you back to the goals

18 discussion. We are going to transition

19 in a moment to public comment. Are we

20 comfortable for now with the geographic

21 focus discussion? Is that good enough

22 for going out and doing public

23 engagement?

24 MR. BIGFORD: Now there is Delaware

25 inland, but is there a Delaware and

141

1 Maryland inland base?

2 MS. SCHULTZ: In Maryland, not in

3 Virginia.

4 MS. McKAY: Virginia does not have

5 a national estuary program, but seaside

6 special area management program we've

7 been funding for about 12 years.

8 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Tom, just to close

9 the gap on your question. In New York we

10 have an inland-based program that is not

11 an NEP, but a state run to the coastal

12 management program for the source of

13 Long Island South Shore base of

14 Long Island that runs along and inside of

15 the barrier on the -- and New York are

16 covered by something is what your

17 question was.

18 MR. BIGFORD: Thanks.

19 MR. NOBLE: This goes back to what

20 I was talking about earlier. We do know

21 some of these areas, can we not further

22 identify them? I'm -- you know, I don't

23 want to exclude what we don't know, but

24 what we do know is we can influence what

25 do know is what I'm saying.

142

1 MS. CANTRAL: Are we --

2 MR. WALTERS: All states were

3 mentioned except for New Jersey. Does

4 New Jersey also have a significant

5 program for in shore?

6 MR. ROSEN: Barnegat Bay?

7 MR. WALTERS: Just Barnegat.

8 MS. CHYTALO: Delaware Bay program.

9 MR. ROSEN: (Inaudible)

10 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. I propose,

11 even though it's a few minutes earlier

12 than our 2:30 schedule, but we have

13 several people signed up for public

14 comment and I think they are all in the

15 room. I'm looking around, I know many of

16 you know, at least the first, second,

17 three who are signed up to go. So how

18 about we go ahead and transition? Is

19 that okay?

20 Let me explain how we are going to

21 structure the comment. We have six

22 people signed up for this session. As

23 you can see, we have a table here for

24 people who want to offer public comment

25 to the RPB to come get situated at these

143

1 two chairs, and you'll have three minutes

2 each to share your remarks.

3 So, if we can get -- just a moment,

4 not until I'm done explaining the

5 process. We ask the first, second folks

6 to come get settled, and when No. 1 is

7 done, if you can just excuse yourself

8 from the table. Next person identify

9 yourself and come to the space and we can

10 keep you rolling along.

11 So how does that sound? Does that

12 make sense?

13 Also, just public service

14 announcement. We will have another

15 opportunity later this afternoon for

16 public comment. That will take place

17 after we have a discussion about

18 stakeholder engagement, and right now

19 that is scheduled for 5:00 o'clock. It

20 will be somewhere very close to

21 5:00 o'clock when we have our next

22 session.

23 With that, I will call the first,

24 second folks who would be Morgan Gopnik

25 and Ali Chase, and, Brent Greenfield,

144

1 you'll be third and ready to get up and

2 seat after Morgan is done.

3 Just while you are getting settled,

4 just a couple reminders. We are

5 preparing a transcript and include your

6 comments as part of that official

7 transcript, and if you could, for the

8 benefit of everyone, including the court

9 reporter, identify yourself and your

10 affiliation before you offer your

11 comment. Thank you for began -- is there

12 a timekeeper?

13 MS. GOPNIK: (MORGAN GOPNIK)

14 Backing up, my name is Morgan

15 Gopnik. I know a lot of you around the

16 table and a lot of people in the room and

17 it bothers me to have my back to the

18 people behind me. I'm speaking to them

19 as much as the people in the front of the

20 room.

21 I've been doing ocean policy work

22 for a very long time at the National

23 Academy of Science, and I -- and I was

24 advisor to the Ocean Commission and very

25 southern position as long the way.

145

1 But I've just finished a research

2 project, four-year research project, Duke

3 University, and it's got me thinking sort

4 of in new waste. I've been in a lot of

5 meetings, I was the chair and audience.

6 I'm -- it's very familiar. We've all

7 done this. Everybody has been on a

8 million committees.

9 This, you know, lots I want to say,

10 but I want to just raise an issue. This

11 is a public comment about public comments

12 which I'm actually surprised I was first

13 on the list, but I'm glad I am. It will

14 inform everybody else. So, to paraphrase

15 Lloyd Benson, who remembers Lloyd

16 Benson's? Famous comments. I know a lot

17 about stakeholder engagement. That's

18 what I spent the last four years

19 studying. This is not stakeholder. It

20 may be legally required and check off the

21 list of public input. This is not

22 stakeholder engagement. There is a lot

23 of research and a lot of people at this

24 table are familiar with it that shows

25 this kind of -- you put things out and

146

1 you get public comment and two minutes on

2 a microphone not only does not really

3 provide useful input, but it usually just

4 kind of annoys the public more than

5 thinking they feel they are not being

6 listened to but window dressing and there

7 will be more discussion later. It's --

8 again, we pretend to be science based.

9 There is a lot of science and research

10 done about how you involve stakeholders.

11 If it's websites and places, people can

12 submit comments. You are not doing

13 stakeholder engagement.

14 The lawyers will raise issues about

15 FACA and FOIA and NEPA and all of those

16 things, but there is a long history and

17 case studies of people that have said

18 along those rungs, rules and having done

19 dialogue and one of the times and the

20 time goes quickly in these little

21 comments is one of the lessons learned,

22 and I think it gets to your geographic

23 focus issues is that to do genuine

24 engagement and dialogue you need a more

25 nested process. You can't have

147

1 meaningful public input in the entire

2 region. It has to be broken down into

3 the smaller places people know and care

4 about.

5 One of the answers is you are going

6 to have to -- it's more trouble and takes

7 more time, but to get, really understand

8 what people are thinking, you have to do

9 a more nested process where you look at

10 specific places and specific areas.

11 And then the other things it gets

12 to is the goals, and why I bring it up,

13 the goals in the geographic focus section

14 you can't begin to draft visions and

15 goals until you've had that really

16 meaningful robust stakeholder dialogue.

17 Once you draft it and put it out for

18 public comment and people get their

19 little written documents, comments and

20 all go into a black hole you sort of lost

21 the chance to really engage the public.

22 Those are really process things I'm

23 raising, but I hope you all keep them in

24 mind as you move forward.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you, Ali.

148

1 Before you go, I will offer an

2 alternative, since Morgan made the

3 statement she didn't like having her back

4 to everyone else, if you would like, as

5 you come up for public comment, you have

6 the option of sitting at the table or

7 going to the podium. You can do that as

8 well.

9 MS. CHASE: (ALI CHASE)

10 I have so much to touch on. You

11 are going to be my enemy in this and I'll

12 do my best to keep it short. I

13 appreciate a comment made about

14 geographic scope and what we can

15 reasonably tackle and what are the first

16 pieces we should deal with. This is an

17 initial part of this process and I think

18 that actually is not just about

19 geographic scope. That's about the goals

20 and we should think about this as this is

21 a lot of work.

22 I want to thank you all for being

23 here. I know you have a ton of other

24 things you are doing and it's important

25 to think about those shared goals as

149

1 people did mention this morning and what

2 we can talk about and start there and

3 billed on a process for success.

4 And how everyone comes together and

5 I do also want to talk a little bit about

6 something that was raised this morning

7 about the plan, and the final

8 recommendations themselves state that the

9 regional planning bodies are convening to

10 created speak with one another and to

11 create a process, but ultimately develop

12 a plan, and that's important because at

13 the end of this process you all know each

14 other and can pick up the phone and chat

15 about what's going on in the reason, but

16 show what you've developed and have

17 others build from that beyond the time

18 you are going to be here and the time we

19 might be here.

20 But to see this as a process and

21 plan and this is your first step, and so

22 at the end of the process there is more

23 we learn about and you pick that up and

24 take the next iteration of it. But I

25 think it's important to come out of this

150

1 with a document. I really can't

2 emphasize that enough.

3 In terms of the comments made about

4 just sitting on a shelf, I think that's

5 really up to you what happens at the end

6 of the process. It does not have to sit

7 on a shelf. This mentions that the

8 federal agencies are required to comply

9 with these final regional ocean plans, so

10 actually it should not sit there, but be

11 something you are consistently referring

12 to in your daily work.

13 The goals themselves that were

14 discussed and up there I have some

15 initial thoughts on. The protect

16 habitats an ecosystem functionality, not

17 just habitats, it's also wildlife. We

18 have not discussed the goals about a

19 healthy ecosystem itself. Not just

20 having the ecosystem continue to function

21 as is, but there were comments made about

22 can we make this better? Can we improve

23 the system? I think that's important.

24 We want to know what we are getting out

25 of this. I also think, too, there has to

151

1 be some prioritization about the goals.

2 Now, a number of the organizations

3 I work with and NRDC certainly may fold

4 differently in other regions. There are

5 some goals that may be and should be

6 prioritized. The other is the need to

7 protect the healthy coastal and

8 ecosystem. I refer you to the work being

9 done in the northeast in the Regional

10 Planning Body. I think their goal that

11 talks about the need for planning

12 framework to develop that sort of healthy

13 ocean and coastal system is really

14 important, and I also appreciated another

15 one of their goals that talks about the

16 planning process should work so that it

17 develops compatibility among the

18 different uses, and I think that's what

19 you are getting at with some of the goals

20 you have here. But listing that as that

21 gives me the feeling is business as --

22 gives me the feeling of business as usual

23 and not looking ahead to how these things

24 can work better together.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Brant will be next.

152

1 MR. GREENFIELD: (BRENT GREENFIELD)

2 Thank you. I'm pleased to make the

3 following comments on behalf of the

4 National Ocean Policy Coalition regarding

5 the ideas put forth for initial

6 Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Planning and

7 Geographic Focus.

8 While more extensive comments on

9 user group engagement will be made

10 following the stakeholder engagement

11 discussion, the following suggestions are

12 prefaced with this caveat.

13 Although appreciated, opportunities

14 such as today's meeting and last month's

15 webinar cannot substitute for the

16 information and perspective that would be

17 gained through the formal engagement of

18 commercial and recreational interests

19 through direct representation on the

20 regional planning body or at minimum, a

21 formal stakeholder advisory committee.

22 By proceeding in the absence of

23 such engagement, even at this early

24 stage, the Mid-Atlantic regional Ocean

25 planning process is threatening to

153

1 inadequately reflect the input and

2 perspectives of the regions most

3 significant existing and future potential

4 economic contributors and result in

5 unintended and adverse consequences.

6 With that as the context, the

7 initial draft goals should be modified in

8 at least several respects. First, in

9 addition to detailing the meaning of

10 responsible, the goal to facilitate

11 responsible renewable energy development

12 should be revised to state facilitate

13 responsible energy development. This is

14 necessary to reflect that certain areas

15 represented on this body support offshore

16 conventional and other types of energy

17 activities, as mentioned this afternoon

18 as well as renewable energy development.

19 In Virginia, for example, there is

20 bipartisan support both at the statehouse

21 and in congress for both types of

22 development. For the same reason, the

23 sub bullet for the first principle that

24 references enhancing efficiencies in

25 renewable energy siting should be revised

154

1 to enhancing efficiencies in energy

2 siting.

3 In addition, the goal to ensure

4 access for existing and traditional uses

5 should be revised to state ensure access

6 for existing, traditional and future

7 potential uses. This modification is

8 needed to acknowledge the importance of

9 ensuring that the region can obtain the

10 significant economic and societal

11 benefits that could result from access to

12 new as well as existing commercial and

13 recreational activities.

14 Finally, especially given the

15 continued challenging economic

16 environment, goals to promote

17 opportunities for job creation and

18 economic growth while maintaining

19 existing jobs, as well as to promote

20 infrastructure revitalization, should be

21 added to the list.

22 A to the principles, in addition to

23 the recommendation just made, the final

24 bullet should be revised to state that

25 the use of the best existing and new

155

1 ocean data will require utilization of

2 sound science and compliance with federal

3 data quality laws and regulations.

4 With regard to the process and

5 timeline for further developing and

6 finalizing regional goals, such timelines

7 must be based on the availability of

8 sound science, data and information and

9 provide commercial and recreational

10 interests with a sufficient and

11 reasonable opportunity to actively and

12 directly participate in providing

13 guidance and advice. More detailed

14 comments on the proposed five-year

15 timeline will be provided during the

16 public comment session on operational

17 considerations.

18 Thank you for the opportunity to

19 comment.

20 MR. HEMPHILL: (ARLO HEMPHILL)

21 My name is Arlo Hemphill with the

22 Maryland Coastal Base Program, and that

23 is one of the national estuary programs

24 you guys were discussing just shortly

25 back ago.

156

1 What I would like to address is the

2 issue of geographic scope and in

3 particular, this issue of leaving out the

4 nearest estuaries when it comes to the

5 large estuary such as the Chesapeake and

6 Delaware Bay. Those areas are so large

7 and complex they deserve their own unit

8 of planning.

9 However, the near shore base that

10 basically outline our entire region are

11 very small. The programs that work them

12 are -- work on very low budgets and they

13 are immediately connected to the ocean

14 environment. They are part of the same

15 exact system. The national estuary

16 programs are not the solution you think

17 they are. We focus almost entirely on

18 water quality issues that come from

19 land-based sources of pollution. We work

20 with -- manage the services from farmers

21 and worry about things what people are

22 putting on their lawns. We create rain

23 gardens, living shorelines. Everything

24 is coming from the land. We are not set

25 up to deal with impacts coming from the

157

1 ocean. We do not have a history of

2 dealing with multiple water spaces and

3 the issues that you are talking about,

4 the things coming down its pipelines,

5 energy and military and fishing, these

6 will have impacts on us. We are not set

7 up to do the offshore within -- farm off

8 Maryland. We hear so much about the

9 training area and long-term maintenance

10 operation center will be located in the

11 Maryland coastal base, something that the

12 Maryland coastal base program has no

13 history of dealing with.

14 There is an enormous offshore

15 recreational fishery off of Ocean City,

16 Maryland, and those fishing boats come in

17 and harbor within the coastal base. The

18 fisheries themselves, the commercial

19 fisheries, the things they are fishing

20 for, most of those organisms have a live

21 history that has an offshore stage and in

22 shore stage, they migrate between

23 different parts of their locations. Its

24 decision have an immediate impact on the

25 in shore environment and to draw a line,

158

1 its estuaries are covered by the national

2 estuaries program is not really true

3 because of the focus of the national

4 estuaries program. It's one unit. One

5 large ecosystem we need to consider, the

6 near shore base.

7 I thank you for your attention.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

9 MR. GOVE: (MATT GOVE)

10 Surf Rider Foundation. Thank you

11 for your time.

12 If you don't know what surf riding

13 is, we are not opposed to surfers and

14 other people that use the beach, water

15 access. We have the volunteer chapter in

16 its Mid-Atlantic region with 3,500 paying

17 members and 3,500 supporters.

18 We appreciate what Morgan said

19 about the process of involvement and get

20 into that more this second time today to

21 speak.

22 There was a lot said before. I

23 want to touch on a couple things.

24 Definitely Surf Rider, having an ocean

25 plan seems to have the process without

159

1 the plan and also seems plans are being

2 made without us. We should go for a plan

3 with this group. I agree that sitting on

4 the shelf, that does happen to plans, but

5 that is usually because of abandon. If

6 we stick to it and doing reiterations

7 you'll have a great plan for the

8 mid-Atlantic. The document that comes

9 out, there was a small situation, areas

10 of special concern seemed to be that

11 beaches and recreation seemed to be

12 missing from that list. So if you can

13 add something about the beach environment

14 and all of the recreation that goes on

15 there.

16 And then one of the draft goal

17 about habitats and ecosystem function.

18 That does seem to need some more to it.

19 There does not say anything about

20 wildlife. Maybe that's part of the

21 ecosystem function, but wildlife should

22 by in there, and so far I agree and

23 restore needs to be in there.

24 We got into ensure access to ports

25 but I was confused what that point was,

160

1 yea or nay. I was not sure what that

2 meant, access to ports.

3 I think I agree that we should push

4 towards the shared interest. There is a

5 lot of things we do agree on, some big

6 things, maybe some of you don't, but the

7 shared interest seems to be the place to

8 start, at least for now.

9 I think for me to get much interest

10 from our folks with, if we say

11 renewable -- facilitate renewable energy

12 we want that and that will be great, but

13 I think I'll get a ton of comments if we

14 say let's facilitate all energy so

15 just -- people will get really interested

16 in that.

17 And as far as geographic scope,

18 that's a tough one. We struggle with

19 that with our surf riding I'll talk about

20 more with later or tomorrow, but maybe

21 some sort of area, you know, maybe

22 initial focus area or primary focus area.

23 Okay? That's all I wanted to say. Thank

24 you.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

161

1 Cindy, you are next.

2 MS. ZIPF: (CINDY ZIPF)

3 Clean Ocean Action.

4 I thank you, but I thank you for

5 being here and providing us an

6 opportunity, structured as it is, to

7 provide some comment. I do want to say a

8 few things. I'm not sure I'm going to

9 get sweeped into the three minutes or

10 not. I'm here representing 135

11 organizations that I represent, so in my

12 mind I get three minutes time, that's

13 135. Get comfortable people.

14 I do want to say from the outset

15 that we do support the idea of the

16 National Ocean Policy and that it

17 contains within it some great vision and

18 frank words to protect the ecosystem so

19 many of us depend on, whether it's for

20 livelihood or whether it's to enjoy the

21 amazing resources and ecosystem that it

22 is.

23 I want to also support and what

24 Morgan stepped up to say and she really

25 did I think articulate how I feel about

162

1 the process and the structure. So far I

2 know we are deferring stakeholder until

3 later, but the structure versus

4 established, us versus them system that

5 has to be unhelpful. I do also want to

6 thank Tony for providing the college and

7 university. We worked with them on a

8 variety of things. It is a good for --

9 up to have these discussions. I don't

10 know when you are going to be back, but

11 you should be much more involved in the

12 public process.

13 Your timeline is really kind of,

14 you know, very long and there is huge

15 decisions going to be made in the very

16 near future about whether or not to

17 develop liquified natural gas facilities

18 off our coast, whether or not to allow

19 seismic testing to blast the eardrums of

20 every living creature from here to

21 Florida in search of oil in all of the

22 wrong places.

23 On the goals and particular they

24 were extremely thin, if you look at the

25 northeast regional planning bodies'

163

1 goals, they are much more thoughtful in

2 containing sort of the overall ocean with

3 all of its resources and much more

4 protective. I think it was Sarah that

5 talked about wanting to add beyond just

6 protect but improve and restore.

7 Now, we've been through a lot in

8 the New York, New Jersey. We've had 30

9 years of ocean planning and did it in the

10 wrong area. We worked really, really

11 hard to find an environmentally sound

12 alternative and to stop ocean

13 industrialization and it's a really good

14 plan. It would provide to protection for

15 the sand resources we need for climate,

16 that adaptation and to deal with

17 resiliency. We need to allow for the

18 shipping. Shipping is a very good

19 environmental sound way to move lots of

20 cargo and allow for renewable energy

21 resources and protect the clean ocean

22 that we've all come to depend on. It's a

23 little frustrating. There is a new body

24 in town and one made up of new acronyms

25 and complicated to the public and one we

164

1 don't know how our vices are going to be

2 connected, but it's definitely here and

3 there.

4 We are not at the table, so I

5 would, just again, reaffirm what I

6 suggested down in April meetings is to

7 bring the public to the table, and

8 finally on the geographic focus.

9 I would add to Mo's point about,

10 you know, upland versus inland impacts

11 and G terminal off our -- is not imports,

12 it's for exports. If we allowed exports

13 of natural gas from the region in

14 New York, we have an explosion of

15 fracking which is already causing

16 extensive land-based harm to our

17 waterways and air and truly to negative

18 impacts towards climate change and I do

19 know want to be sure that as we reflect

20 on activities that will be happening that

21 poor guys arms are going to get tired.

22 We actually will look at the upland

23 impacts and we have an initiative called

24 the Clean Ocean Zone and present you with

25 copies and that establishes the New York

165

1 and New Jersey zone as a clean ocean

2 zoning. That's our idea of clean ocean

3 zoning.

4 We'll continue on with the

5 dialogue. I guess I want to reflect on,

6 you know, the -- how ironic we are in a

7 puppet show. We need to know who is

8 going to be the puppets and who is the

9 puppeteers and I hope that we can all

10 work together to come up with a common

11 team to work together for this amazing

12 resource of our ocean.

13 MR. DiDOMENICO: (GREG DiDOMENICO)

14 Thank you for allowing me an

15 opportunity to speak. I know your staff

16 made it to the table. I didn't sign in

17 earlier. Thank you.

18 My name is Greg DiDomenico. I

19 serve as the director of the Garden State

20 Food Association. Garden State is right

21 here in New Jersey. I won't go into the

22 reason, given the time constraints, I'll

23 get to the meat of the issue.

24 As a way we see it, we have been

25 following this issue since its inception.

166

1 We put in comments and have given

2 presentations over the last couple years

3 including presentation that actually is

4 in your preceding book, which is out

5 front here. I want to read from that as

6 a resource to remind you of how long

7 we've been working on this and seriously

8 taking its share. I said two words that

9 are absolutely key, measurement and

10 achievement. Goals should be measurable

11 and achievable. The fishing industry

12 knows this well. We have been dealing

13 with fishers management issues and a host

14 of other issues that absolutely have

15 become measurable and achievable. We

16 made it and it's made a difference, not

17 on the environment, but in other

18 industry. So this group should do the

19 same.

20 I also want to add that while there

21 seems to be a very overall and broad and

22 vague approach as outlined in these

23 proceedings and I want to quote directly

24 from CMSP and EBM, you know the acronyms.

25 This is a particular, in light of both of

167

1 these, manage and regulate. The

2 potential of key issues are critical to

3 ecosystem function. Resiliency, improve

4 species adaptation and achieve healthier

5 and more productive environment. Restore

6 protected species populations, ecosystem

7 and diversity.

8 These are undefinable terms. They

9 are not regulatory terms and some cases

10 not even biological terms. I can tell

11 you right now that we lack the science

12 and resources to do exactly that. So,

13 either the goals have to be to create the

14 science, reach out to the scientists and

15 academics and into region to get this

16 information to achieve that you should

17 not post that is one of your goals that

18 is not measurable, not achievable.

19 Second part and I'll be brief, I

20 have only a minute left, geographic

21 focus. Every person within your

22 stakeholder group, whether it be a

23 server, a commercial fisherman, bay man,

24 recreational fisherman will absolutely

25 tell you the key to your success is

168

1 starting in the estuarian environment,

2 whether it be up in the Delaware Bay or

3 right behind the barrier islands of

4 New Jersey. That's the key. If you

5 don't start there, I don't think you have

6 a very good chance at achieving some of

7 these goals. Specifically, Madam

8 Bornholdt, you said one of the most

9 important things today that is whatever

10 offshore development we do if we generate

11 wind power, it has to be delivered.

12 Those transmission lines are going to go

13 to a fish habitat and we fish and enjoy

14 and everybody else the in value of these

15 resources. They are dependent. If we

16 don't have a healthy is estuarian

17 environment, we won't have any of these

18 species.

19 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

20 Do we have Doug Pheister?

21 MR. PHEISTER: (DOUG PHEISTER)

22 Thank you for having me. I'm Doug

23 Pheister with the Offshore Wind

24 Development. We represent the Offshore

25 Wind in the U.S. about 230 to 235

169

1 members. We represent those of the

2 offshore wind developers here in the U.S.

3 and much of the supply chain that comes

4 here first. Offshore winds farms do get

5 built here.

6 I appreciate your opportunity. It

7 was great listening to all of you today

8 and provide public comment, and I want to

9 comment on two of the slides. The goals

10 I know, problems people have been talking

11 about, the goals, but we are in favor of

12 the first goal you list of facilitating

13 response for new energy development, and

14 we would be in favor of all offshore

15 wind, specifically in that goal, and, you

16 know, we think there is a risk in

17 expanding to other energy sources if

18 goals become defuse. Everyone has noted

19 resources can be limited to pursue ten of

20 these goals effect and cause is warranted

21 here and also note that with my knowledge

22 the five states part of this group are

23 all in favor of offshore wind and all of

24 the policies in favor of offshore wind

25 and also true with the current

170

1 administration in Washington.

2 And the second thing I want to talk

3 about, principles.

4 I didn't know the third point is

5 provide for past, current and future

6 official uses. That is something we are

7 encountering a lot as we try to build

8 offshore wind in the U.S. is historic use

9 of every usage in every area is not

10 necessarily going to be preserved for the

11 future. That's a disaster for ocean

12 planning. What you are saying, what has

13 happened up until yesterday will continue

14 to happen forever into the future and

15 every OCS and that's an important

16 principle to keep in mind, like offshore

17 wind and other offshore uses. We can't

18 be stuck in the past.

19 That's it. Thank you.

20 MS. CANTRAL: So, I think this

21 concludes that public comment section.

22 Thanks to all of you who signed up. And

23 I'm feeling compelled to say a few things

24 to clarify how we feel. The public

25 comment portion is working, so hopefully

171

1 I can rectify this.

2 As I mentioned before, you'll

3 have -- we'll have another public comment

4 section today, that starts at

5 5:00 o'clock or thereabouts. We also

6 have a built-in public comment sections

7 into the agenda for tomorrow. Our idea,

8 and this was what I was referring to as

9 an experiment was to pause the discussion

10 of a particular topic and invite public

11 comment for people who wanted to weigh in

12 on the discussion on the table, in this

13 particular instance being about goals and

14 geographic focus, and many of you took

15 advantage of that and offered that, but

16 that does not preclude anything else you

17 want to say. You can sign up for any

18 public session. You can sign up for all

19 of them and talk about anything on your

20 mind, and you are very much welcome and

21 encouraged to do that.

22 I think the RPB recognizes that the

23 formal structure of this and presenting

24 your comment and they are listening and

25 that's this is all formal and for the

172

1 record is unsatisfying in many ways, but

2 also an important part of this particular

3 meeting -- this kind of meeting and this

4 one of several mechanisms, so please

5 understand and participate and help shape

6 some of the discussions we are going to

7 get into in the afternoon, and we'll

8 continue as the process evolves about how

9 to provide as many opportunities for

10 meaningful engagement in the ways that

11 many of you are asking for and have ideas

12 about, and I think that those ideas are

13 received by the people here because they

14 want to add those opportunities for

15 engagement. That's one reason why this

16 is an evening event, so you can do that.

17 That's not in this formal structure.

18 This is, I think, I just want to clarify

19 this is, but one of a number of

20 opportunities and they are going to do

21 their best to identify as many other

22 opportunities as is possible.

23 So, with that, we are right at

24 3:00 o'clock and I think we'll take a

25 break and come back at 3:15 and we'll

173

1 resume the discussion about goals for

2 regional ocean planning, geographic focus

3 and we've taken care of and we'll wrap up

4 and see how we see fit and stakeholder

5 engagement.

6 (Recess.)

7 MS. CANTRAL: We are ready to get

8 started.

9 In just a moment we are going to

10 review the draft ocean Mid-Atlantic

11 Regional planning goals. We would like

12 to identify some next steps and be clear

13 about that. We have a few ideas to share

14 and see what you see about that, but

15 before we return to the topic at hand, I

16 want to say a couple of things to

17 reinforce some of my overview of the

18 agenda. Because I wanted to make sure

19 everyone is clear what we are doing the

20 remainder of the day.

21 Once we wrap up this discussion

22 about goals and geographic focus, we will

23 then shift our focus to hear from the

24 work group that has been developing ideas

25 related to engagement, which includes how

174

1 to engage stakeholders, everything is

2 this body, but that in particular,

3 because we are talking about developing

4 goals, is a very obvious and immediate

5 connection. And then we will have some

6 discussion about that, pause for our

7 second public comments session, as I said

8 earlier, around 5:00 o'clock. We'll then

9 adjourn for the day. This part of the

10 meeting will adjourn, but I may not have

11 been very clear about. If you look at

12 the agenda for today, from 6:30 to 7:30

13 p.m. is what's called -- what is being

14 referred to as a networking reception.

15 This is intended to be an opportunity for

16 you as members, the public stakeholders,

17 to engage and network with the RPB and

18 vice versa. So it's another mechanism,

19 another chance to have some informal

20 dialogue.

21 I'm supposed to tell you there will

22 be free pizza. We are on a university

23 campus. We have pizza and we

24 encourage -- invite and encourage you to

25 participate in that event that will be

175

1 immediately after this setting concludes

2 for the day.

3 So, Tom, what else do I need to

4 add?

5 MR. BIGFORD: Pizza and salad, but

6 plenty of food and opportunity for plenty

7 of talk.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Great.

9 The other announcement I would like

10 to make for the remainder of today, we

11 have been joined by the campus TV crew

12 who is, as you can see, camera man

13 waving. He'll be filming for this

14 afternoon and make sure you are all aware

15 of that.

16 So, a couple things to get this

17 conversation kicked off again. As was

18 reflected by you in your comments earlier

19 about the draft goals after Doug's

20 presentation of the work groups thinking

21 on that is a recognition that it's

22 important as a point of departure or

23 perhaps a frame of reference for your

24 thinking about the development of goals

25 to keep in mind the shared interests that

176

1 you all represent for this region, the

2 shared interests across the five states,

3 the federal agencies that are represented

4 and the kind of roles you play in this

5 region and if that's important, to keep

6 in mind as a focal point for developing

7 these goals. There is a lot you could

8 do. You can't do everything, but perhaps

9 focusing on where there really are strong

10 shared interests is a good place to

11 start.

12 Related to that which you heard me

13 say a few times and it's my way of

14 summarizing things, all of you have said

15 is also looking for where this body can

16 bring its best value and to making a

17 difference for this region. Again, you

18 can't do everything. There are lots of

19 things you could do where can you

20 maximize your impact and have the

21 greatest contribution to the overall

22 regional help this and the goals you come

23 up with initially and recall we are not

24 making decisions about goals today,

25 that's not the point of this discussion.

177

1 The point of the discussion is to get

2 comfortable enough and close enough with

3 what you've got so far to go out and talk

4 to stakeholders to have some meaningful

5 discussions and input that can then be

6 added to the refinement, but initially

7 thinking about goals that can be flexible

8 and you are comfortable with that fact

9 they are flexible. They do need to be

10 science based an informed by the

11 expertise, the multitudes of experts that

12 people in this region possess and want to

13 help provide to inform all of your

14 thinking.

15 So, a few things that I heard in

16 the discussion and then I would like to

17 open it up and hear your additional

18 reflections including reflecting on some

19 of what we heard during public comment as

20 a practical next step. I heard that you

21 are keen on this idea of developing a

22 similar vision statement. What I refer

23 to is on top of this list of goals so

24 setting the predicate for these goals and

25 starting with taking a look at the

178

1 national statement and then perhaps

2 customizing that with a description of

3 what's unique about this region you would

4 like to include in that is something you

5 would like to develop. And then we

6 heard, had some very good dialogue around

7 the goals and the words that are on this

8 side and the way they are articulated

9 including some of the people who had

10 comments to share. I'll not summarize

11 that right now, I would like to open it

12 back up to see what other kind of

13 reflections or ideas you would like to

14 share at that point and then we'll see if

15 we are ready to wrap this up and as I

16 said I have and I think about how we

17 might proceed and transition to the next

18 discussion.

19 But any thoughts around the table?

20 Anything --

21 MR. PABST: Yeah. Again, I think a

22 lot of the conversations that are

23 happening here, we had at least probably

24 might have over simplified some of the

25 bullets on the goals and that's -- I

179

1 heard a lot of good examples of things we

2 can look at and certainly look to the RPB

3 members to input or definitions on some

4 of the issues we can get. But I think

5 the other comment about prioritization,

6 that is something we need to talk about.

7 You know, are these all dual track or all

8 happening in realtime? I think there is

9 different levels to these goals. Some of

10 them are going to happen and some are

11 happening right now.

12 So this sort of that way of looking

13 at this as well. There is a natural time

14 projection for some of these things. If

15 you talk about future development, that's

16 to be had. If you talk about what's

17 going on now, identifying areas that need

18 to be restored, I think we can take a

19 different stab at some of these things.

20 To me it was not much prioritizing

21 in the sense it was more what do we need

22 to do first and then what do we need to

23 do second. My initial thoughts to get

24 the conversation started.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. Karen and

180

1 Gwynne?

2 MS. CHYTALO: After the public

3 discussion one of the things that came to

4 mind was, you know, about being ocean

5 stewards, something that four of the --

6 one of our goals should be partners, know

7 ocean stewardship. All of these

8 different, be it a state, stakeholder,

9 state, federal, be it a tribe, that we,

10 as a collective group, that's one of the

11 things that we should vet one of our

12 important values we have in the ocean and

13 that -- almost like you know that should

14 be our goal.

15 One of our major goals is that we

16 be partners in ocean stewardship. I

17 think that's gets to the issue of

18 collaboration, cooperation, information

19 sharing, that whole blah-blah-blah, and

20 that kind of stuff which actually could

21 help make things work better. Be more

22 efficient.

23 MS. SCHULTZ: There were two

24 comments that really resonated with me

25 and got me thinking about a couple of our

181

1 draft goals.

2 The there are a number of folks

3 that raised the issue about some of our

4 goals should be oriented towards the

5 economy and jobs and the other one was

6 someone mentioned about ensuring access

7 for new uses.

8 So, when I compared those against

9 what we had for our RPB goals, we had a

10 goal, ensure access, existing and

11 traditional uses and not uses. We had a

12 goal for ensuring access to ports. I'm

13 thinking we may want to think about, you

14 know, you want to ensure, ultimately want

15 to ensure access to those uses that

16 really help us have a strong economy and

17 strong coastal communities.

18 We might end up kind of -- we may

19 want to spend some time thinking through

20 and maybe not necessarily digging down,

21 but some ways elevating a bit, you know,

22 being more generic because then, as we

23 develop our objectives, we -- that's when

24 we get into save efficient access to

25 ports. How do we ensure existing uses or

182

1 access for uses? There is a different

2 way of looking at it.

3 MR. MACH: The other thing I want

4 to approach is to keep it as simple as

5 possible. The more you try to put into

6 it, the more people you are going to

7 exclude, but you have not covered a

8 particular subject area. So, make it

9 short and simple as possible.

10 Same with the vision statement. If

11 it goes more than a statement, ten words,

12 probably said too much. That's not to

13 say any of these subjects that are not

14 mentioned should be excluded, we are here

15 to listen to all subjects presented

16 within the group. But leave it to anyone

17 who wants to come along and present.

18 As time goes on we are going to

19 find that some of these specifics that we

20 can list will be dropping off and new

21 things will come along. So keeping it

22 very short and brief going in is going to

23 be the best approach. Some

24 consideration.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

183

1 MS. COOKSEY: Thank you. Just a

2 couple of ideas. I think an RPB member

3 said it earlier, but Ali Chase said it

4 about the primary goals and then Morgan

5 had this concept of nesting. So if you

6 sort of blend those two things together

7 and lay on top of it a process that the

8 SZM managers use every five years, we

9 look at eight or ten things important to

10 the coast and ocean and then we decide

11 what we will work on and develop a work

12 plan.

13 I guess what I'm saying is from

14 everything that I've heard, both with the

15 public and today, I think there still is

16 a away to do that and identify our

17 priorities for now as well as recognize

18 those that will be coming up that we

19 don't even know about.

20 Ten years ago I never thought we

21 would be working on offshore planning,

22 yet we are. We can do a critical riding

23 exercise that would be backed up by sort

24 of today's thinking and why we are

25 choosing to work on the things that we

184

1 are and that would be equal to the

2 resources available.

3 MS. CANTRAL: Are there thoughts?

4 Reflections? Doug?

5 MR. PABST: I think there is a

6 couple of parts we can go down with a lot

7 of these and I'm seeing several. We are

8 clearly going to have to reconcile one of

9 the most important things we can do for

10 ourselves and our public. We have to

11 manage our expectations whether we use

12 the word action, priority or objective.

13 We all want to restore and promote and do

14 all of those things.

15 Where I grew up we are concerned

16 about saying everywhere we need to manage

17 what we can do in a one-year or two-year

18 or three-year time period. We've had

19 these conversations. We've had them for

20 a long time in different groups, but just

21 for the members to keep in mind the

22 concept of now we don't want to -- we

23 were concerned about getting too big. We

24 would be setting us up to fail which is

25 the first thing we tried to do, but a

185

1 balancing act we are trying to keep here.

2 MS. CANTRAL: Anyone else?

3 MR. RAMOS: Just a couple things.

4 You kind of reminded me just now, Doug,

5 about the things we may not be able to

6 do. I think it's important to include

7 some of those things we were not sure

8 this is going to work and kind of keep

9 our finger on the pulse for that next

10 emerging issue that will come up. Maybe

11 there is one or two things to focus on,

12 but we need some kind of emerging

13 issue-type portion written into our

14 plane.

15 The other thing I took out of the

16 comment period is the public comments is

17 the geographic area. I still think we

18 need to -- there needs to be maybe a

19 priority area, geographic area, but the

20 secondary geographic area. I think we

21 can accommodate that and include the

22 estuaries and what not. But keeping our

23 focus out, you know, in the oceans

24 themselves.

25 The other thing I heard, last thing

186

1 I heard was the word enhance that someone

2 actually said. I don't remember who it

3 was when we were talking about habitats.

4 They started thinking about protect,

5 restore, enhance. Very different

6 meanings. Protect has a very combined

7 meaning in my mind which basically is

8 like a national park on monument, areas

9 we are not going to touch at all where

10 restore and enhances there is going to be

11 some mixed use in there. So I'm not

12 saying we need to define that today or

13 right now, but that's something the group

14 needs to decide what exactly does protect

15 mean.

16 MR. MACH: Comment on that, Pedro?

17 I feel the estuaries and base are

18 represented. We have the nation here.

19 We have the states here. The subjects

20 that come out of the areas become

21 important. Those will be presented as

22 they ride to the ocean level. So, I

23 think they are there.

24 MS. CANTRAL: So, how about this

25 for the next step, this was all very good

187

1 additional ideas and thinking to be

2 factoring in and that coupled with ideas

3 that you were all shares in the earlier

4 part of this discussion there were some

5 very specific ideas about some tweaking

6 to the wording on these -- on the slide.

7 There were some questions about the

8 general approach. There is some still a

9 need for clarification. I think at least

10 and in my recollection there was a

11 question about what we really mean by its

12 424 bullet. The one about access to

13 ports with John's comment about being

14 efficient said of saying sufficient that

15 may be a direction we may want to go.

16 In any event, what I'm thinking we

17 could turn around a revised set of

18 bullets that reflect the thinking, the

19 situations and the questions that have

20 been presented today and put those back

21 in front of you tomorrow. We've got some

22 time. We built in some iteration into

23 this agenda because we knew that as you

24 got more into the discussions you would

25 want to circle back to some things. This

188

1 may be one opportunity for doing that and

2 then we can see if you're close enough to

3 at least if not deciding that's what

4 you -- that's the set you are ready to go

5 out to the public with then deciding what

6 needs to happen before you are ready to

7 go out and have some discussions about

8 the goals.

9 So, how does that sound for the

10 moment? We will revisit this tomorrow

11 and look at a new slide and it's got to,

12 I guess you've got presented in it and

13 see what that suggestion.

14 Is everyone okay with that?

15 (Chorus of ayes.)

16 MS. CANTRAL: Everything I ask you

17 to think about when we do have that

18 discussion part of that has been --

19 hasn't been addressed what needs to

20 for -- in phase of your discussion about

21 goals. Given the framework that the

22 worker has presented with the goals in

23 principal and objectives, what do you

24 want to do about articulating objectives?

25 And what I mean by that, some early ideas

189

1 about what an objective might look like

2 to help people understand what you really

3 mean by these goals, which are high level

4 right now. It might be frustrating to

5 have a discussion about something at a

6 very high level without some, for

7 example, we can do that. So I think you

8 should have a discussion about what you

9 think about that.

10 MR. PABST: Yes.

11 MS. CANTRAL: For that we'll be

12 revisiting this tomorrow.

13 So, at this point I think we are

14 ready to shift our focus and turn to the

15 topic of stakeholder engagement and for

16 this session I'm going to recognize --

17 MR. PABST: Excuse me. With the

18 geographic focus are we going to sort of

19 have that keep going or have something

20 similar in -- I don't think we can do

21 something similar on those bullets, but I

22 wanted to make sure if the RPB was

23 comfortable having -- I'm not sure we

24 want to go with that.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Well, I don't know.

190

1 Maybe we should think about that. Let's

2 revisit that as part of the next steps or

3 when we wrap up today and you did get to

4 a place where you asked are you

5 comfortable with what you said about

6 geographic focus for now? The answer to

7 that was yes and you have yes, and you

8 have comments about the focus which may

9 change your thinking and we want to be

10 respectful of that.

11 MR. PABST: Yes.

12 MS. CANTRAL: Are we ready for

13 stakeholder engagement?

14 MS. COOKSEY: I'm first.

15 I'm Sarah Cooksey, again, from the

16 state of Delaware and Tom Bigford and I

17 will do a little tag team.

18 First I'll take a moment to

19 encourage someone, everyone to hang

20 around and I'll finish the formal part of

21 the meeting. I think it's the south side

22 of this building upstairs. We are going

23 to have a conversation for at least an

24 hour. The RPB members will be available

25 and we'll have folks taking notes, but

191

1 there will be no formal reporting out of

2 everything that was said. We are having

3 pizza and salad and cookies and pass the

4 hat because we don't have any money to

5 pay for that.

6 But it should be time for us to

7 really talk to each other or continue

8 this conversation because I think I can

9 speak for everyone at the table that we

10 all recognize the limitations of this

11 type of format. And while there have

12 been times when I've been very grateful

13 when I've been in front of an angry

14 crowd, they can only talk for three

15 minutes. So far everyone and this

16 process that MARCO has been working on

17 has been very polite and I'm grateful for

18 that. I hope you stay around to talk to

19 us and engage with the RPB members while

20 the tables are set up in spite of what it

21 is and you'll have opportunities to talk

22 on all of our issues. Please attend.

23 So, with that, what Tom and I will

24 do is talk about what we have done and

25 hope to do in the future and present some

192

1 ideas to the RPB to discuss and hope,

2 either reach a decision or agreement for

3 a path forward. Both the short-term

4 goals and long-term aspirations of our

5 work group have been identified and the

6 machine -- potential mechanisms we've

7 identified with stakeholders and gather

8 your input into our discussions that

9 we'll make as an RPB with a special

10 emphasis this is important. On whether

11 or not you we should move forward with a

12 state stakeholder liaison committee

13 that's on top of the RPB right now, I

14 would like you all to give us a

15 recommendation specifically with whether

16 we should use a stakeholder liaison

17 committee which we'll go into in a

18 minute.

19 What have we been doing is what I

20 refer to as the more traditional ways of

21 engaging people that yes, we know it's

22 not stapled engagements, but doing your

23 best with the limitations we have that

24 includes we have the website, we have an

25 email, we've developed a database of

193

1 people that have said they would be

2 interested in this and we have some

3 lists, we've been putting out

4 announcements. We have in the first time

5 the RPB was stood up was in April 2013

6 and that was a stakeholder workshop.

7 Many of you were there. We had, already

8 been mentioned, the webinar we had in

9 August and then of course today.

10 So, the work is mostly focused on

11 insuring tools and mechanisms exist for

12 information exchange and that stakeholder

13 engagement opportunities are built into

14 the RPB events.

15 So, our short-term goals have been

16 to improve capacity for communication

17 between the RPB and stakeholders. We

18 would like the RPB to think about how

19 effective this has been. We have

20 improved our distribution list to include

21 sectors. This will allow the RPB to

22 formalize our data sets both by people

23 and regions and sectors and states where

24 they live. By doing so we'll be able to

25 identify gaps in people we have not

194

1 reached out to yet and also clarify

2 potential leaders in the sectors.

3 So, some of the ways we might do

4 better is improving our distribution list

5 to include the distribution and Marshal

6 and Stach is working on this. We would

7 like to encourage the stakeholders to

8 sell offerings. Making participant lists

9 available to the stakeholders will allow

10 them to identify who's been involved and

11 I interested in our activities. This

12 will provide opportunities for discussion

13 at the RPB events and facilitate the

14 development of relationships between

15 stakeholders. Ultimately it will be

16 important for us, the RPB to ask

17 stakeholders how we can motivate them to

18 self organize.

19 So that's a question to the

20 stakeholders. Now, how can we help you

21 self organize? That old adage. What's

22 in it for me? How can you make something

23 in it for you that would help us? The

24 collective us.

25 The group also recommends we

195

1 develop effective processes to develop

2 stakeholder input. We are looking for

3 the RPB's thoughts on some of these ideas

4 listed before you which are surveys,

5 review of letters and position papers

6 facilitate a public review of RPB docs

7 and materials, public listening sessions

8 giving -- we have the resources. The

9 state-led stakeholder liaison committee

10 tomorrow will talk about, in just a

11 minute, are any other ideas? These all

12 appropriate mechanisms to be utilized by

13 us to engage stakeholders' input. Can

14 the RPB members help us implement any of

15 these? If no, when are they

16 appropriated? For example, should we

17 have a normal process for the public

18 review of RPB documents. Where should

19 the documents we posted? How long should

20 they be posted for et cetera. And other

21 ideas will be posed to the RPB

22 stakeholders.

23 So, those are short-term goals and

24 now Tom is going to take us through.

25 MR. BIGFORD: So I did want to talk

196

1 about the formal stakeholders committee

2 option, but first just respond to a few

3 of the comments we heard during the first

4 public comment section. Morgan's comment

5 about engagement and how today, realize

6 isn't stakeholder engagement. We realize

7 this is not all we need to do. This is

8 not all we are going to do. You are

9 going to hear in a few minutes about

10 other ideas. We are thinking about the

11 networking events over pizza is another.

12 Certainly the nested approach that we

13 heard from people that fits into our

14 plans.

15 My personal goal is to have it not

16 be us versus them as Cindy referred to

17 it, I wanted to move to we and that means

18 instead of talking to or hearing

19 statements from the conversation with and

20 have that be what we aim towards, how do

21 we do that? We have to do this formally

22 during meetings. We want to do more in

23 the meetings. Do we balance what we can

24 do with the staff we have and the time

25 you have? How can we make that most

197

1 efficient and effective? That's what we

2 aim towards. The one idea that came out

3 of the work that MARCO did. Thanks to

4 MARCO for the work that they did in the

5 past.

6 The states had given us this, a lot

7 of thought MARCO had done, a paper on

8 options. The stakeholder liaison

9 committee is one option we think is worth

10 considering because I think it meets most

11 of our needs. The idea is to identify

12 liaisons and have them as part of a

13 standing committee that provides input.

14 MARCO would have a lead role therein

15 coordinating with the committee in making

16 sure they engaged and know what we are

17 doing and we hear what they are doing.

18 So the information goes back and forth.

19 There would be a keen responsibility for

20 the liaisons from various sectors, could

21 be geographic sectors, industry sectors,

22 intersectors, people interested in

23 ecosystems, so there could be wind echo

24 systems, the Northern Mid-Atlantic,

25 Mid-Atlantic so we get that nested type

198

1 of philosophy into it, but MARCO and the

2 liaisons would be talking back and forth

3 to make sure the information goes back

4 and forth in both directions. There

5 would be a geographic, local sub

6 regional-type aspect to it. This is in

7 addition to the opportunities we have

8 together to participate in.

9 Someone on a committee of any kind,

10 they serve a role of any kind that does

11 not preempt them from seeking. This is

12 another way to hear from interests and

13 interests would start talking with each

14 other and realize they have more in

15 common and something in common they may

16 not now realize they may have an interest

17 in time or space or their particular

18 interest might be more compatible than

19 they thought. We want to get

20 stakeholders talking about each other as

21 much as we get them talking with us.

22 One thing you'll hear about through

23 this is FACA, our intent to communicate

24 effectively with stakeholders. There is

25 a FACA rule out there or federal rule

199

1 that has to do with advisory committees.

2 If you cross certain lines you have to be

3 much more formal about it. We want to

4 respect our intent to communicate what

5 the public and our intent to comply with

6 FACA and figure out where we want to go

7 on that line.

8 Do we want to go the extra step for

9 something formal that would require a lot

10 of effort by the RPB and make things,

11 communication public, more formal or be a

12 little less formal and find a way to

13 work -- work towards our objectives with

14 respect to FACA and not around them.

15 So, benefits to a stakeholder

16 liaison committee, this could be done

17 quickly working with industries, working

18 with geography. We can identify liaisons

19 that could participate.

20 As I mentioned the third bullet,

21 there has a lot to -- would do with what

22 we are trying to do to earn cross-sector

23 communications. This is a way to get

24 things going quickly. The primary

25 benefit is time and encouraging the

200

1 stakeholders to act quickly, not only the

2 RPB getting the benefit, but the

3 stakeholders organizing themselves

4 quickly and starting to identify shared

5 interests and opportunities.

6 There are a few costs so to speak

7 or challenges as I mentioned. We have to

8 staff, we have to make good of use of

9 whatever committee or structure we want

10 to develop. We want to make sure they go

11 to the effort. They communicate with us,

12 we want to hear their points. MARCO

13 would serve as an intermediary and RPB.

14 But it's crucial that we have people on

15 that committee who represent all of the

16 sectors, that no one gets left behind so

17 every sector has a voice through a

18 liaison they are comfortable with and

19 that works through MARCO through the RPB.

20 The RPB and MARCO and you, we all

21 have constraints on how much time and

22 effort we can commit to this. How do we

23 make that work? How do we meet everyone

24 in a fair place?

25 As I mentioned, the last bullet has

201

1 to do with FACA. We have to be fully

2 respectful, especially the federal agents

3 around the table, but the same

4 obligations and expectations apply to

5 everybody here which is to make this work

6 in a most efficient and effective way.

7 So, few short goals and the

8 questions to the respect RPB. Does the

9 RPB want to move forward in -- is that

10 one of the preferred ways to engage with

11 stakeholders and as we described it?

12 Does this option trigger FACA? What we

13 have to do to not trigger FACA. If we

14 close the line what do we have to do to

15 comply with FACA? We have to be

16 respectful of that. How do stakeholders

17 feel about that? Will the liaisons

18 identify themselves and serve in sector

19 leads? In other words, are there people

20 out there in the audience and people that

21 can't be there today, are they willing to

22 get engaged, have the time, energy and

23 interest to work on this? That's a very

24 important first step.

25 Longer-term aspirations. Sarah

202

1 mentioned the more eclectic approaches we

2 have. There are certainly in-person

3 meetings like that. We are certainly

4 thinking beyond those ideas. The

5 stakeholder committee is beyond that, but

6 also the sector base, meeting, visits to

7 places that can be part of this too, but

8 the authorized star there, considering

9 the development of a formal FACA, that

10 could be a much more formal stakeholder

11 of the committee and can be it -- it's a

12 very formal process that requires select

13 people who are on the committee and

14 public notice of each meeting and

15 documenting the meetings. It's a more

16 formal, costly intensive effort and one

17 of the important points is the short term

18 and long term, give it the appropriate

19 consideration what we wanted to do.

20 Certainly other ideas I mentioned

21 MARCO did a lot of work on options that

22 came up with several and there are

23 certainly more than we can consider here.

24 So it's important the RPB consider these

25 aspirations, consider what they want to

203

1 do, but the stakeholders do the same

2 thing at the same time so RPB makes a

3 decision they've got input from

4 stakeholders to inform that decision.

5 Again, resources, staff dollars.

6 It's very important to you and very

7 important to us. We have limited

8 resources to be able to support that what

9 we would do we must make sure we support

10 that to success.

11 That's it for comments. To open

12 this would hopefully that will inspire

13 some discussion.

14 MS. CANTRAL: Hopefully you have

15 inspired discussion and have comments and

16 reactions to what you heard from Sarah

17 and Tom, both of whom posed some specific

18 questions about what you think about what

19 they have developed working with their

20 work group, building on ideas that have

21 been developed by MARCO. What do folks

22 think? Have some conversation? What are

23 some of the other RPBs done, have they

24 formed as their -- have you guys looked

25 at some of those?

204

1 MR. BIGFORD: One is advanced as

2 far as we are. There is four altogether

3 so the northeast, there are -- they are a

4 couple months ahead of us. They have a

5 stakeholder event like we did. I'm not

6 aware of a standing committee. They did

7 go out and have what I would consider

8 what I heard, I think they did that.

9 They paid visits to places around New

10 England. And being a subset of the RPB

11 and went out and talked to people about

12 goals, scope, charter. I don't know,

13 maybe somebody else knows, Joe? Joe is

14 on that group.

15 MR. ATANGAN: Nick, he is one of

16 the folks involved in the sector. That's

17 a more robust program proceeding very

18 nicely. I guess defer to Nick to answer

19 some of the questions if there is time,

20 but also -- but I guess more concise is

21 they have a different effort and they

22 have dedicated people to go out and

23 engage by various sectors. There is a

24 fishery marine industry engagement

25 opportunity and things like that that

205

1 have taken place already.

2 MS. CANTRAL: I'm going to chime

3 into, address your question and Nick, I'm

4 putting you on notice. I'm putting you

5 on the spot in asking you during public

6 comment section if you would be prepared

7 to share some of the details of the

8 things that Joe was referring to and Tom

9 referred to in particular, apart from

10 what you hear Nick give you a better

11 overview than I can is over the course of

12 the summer after the RPB had their second

13 formal meeting just like this at their

14 first meeting they had exercise just like

15 you are having to make an initial

16 discussion about goals. They did some

17 further work to develop that like I

18 suspect you'll be doing and talk about

19 that at their second meeting in the

20 spring and they went out in a series of

21 meetings state by state and engaged

22 people in those states in a discussion

23 specifically about developing the goals

24 and objectives related to the goals.

25 There is some other things that

206

1 they are doing that Nick, I hope you

2 don't mind being put on the spot to talk

3 about.

4 MR. NAPOLI: (NICK NAPOLI)

5 I think everything you mention so

6 far we did develop goals, objectives. We

7 did have several comment periods during

8 our RPB meetings and did bring those in

9 draft form out for public meetings

10 through out the northeast.

11 May and June and had a less formal

12 sort of interaction and those goals and

13 activities we had a public comment period

14 for it on line. And our summarizing

15 those public comments and revising the

16 goals and objectives.

17 We are right now revising the goals

18 and objectives and take those back out in

19 October to states, specific groups that

20 have been setup to support, some support

21 some of the state planning efforts. We

22 don't have a state stakeholder liaison

23 committee. We've actually had a lot of

24 discussions about this. It's still an

25 ongoing discussion whether to do that.

207

1 I'm curious to hear where you land on

2 that, but we did decide there are

3 existing bodies in New England that

4 helped support some of the state planning

5 efforts that we are going to use at,

6 least in the interim until we get that

7 figured out and whether we do something

8 more regional.

9 In late October we'll be in each of

10 the states to have the state specific

11 bodies to provide feedback.

12 MS. CHYTALO: They are doing the

13 state by state approach basically and

14 gathering the information and bringing

15 that to the table, right?

16 MR. NAPOLI: Yes.

17 MS. CHYTALO: But Tom, one

18 clarification on the structure you and

19 Sarah and another have come up with, will

20 there be one liaison committee -- will

21 there be a state, each state would have a

22 replicate committee and then there will

23 be one committee who puts them all

24 together or something?

25 MR. BIGFORD: Maybe.

208

1 MS. CHYTALO: Clarity.

2 MS. CANTRAL: Tom, I was asking

3 Nick about that states, another way to

4 get into it would be state by state,

5 sector by sector or topic by topic. To

6 cross state boundaries there is a lot of

7 to do it.

8 MR. NAPOLI: Yes.

9 MR. BIGFORD: Maybe there would be

10 one, more than one committee. Another

11 one state by state, or by sector. We can

12 do it all. We have to support it and the

13 stakeholders have to be able to support

14 it. If it falls, either way we've

15 established something that was not the

16 metric? It was attainable and what did

17 Greg say?

18 VOICE: Achievable and measurable.

19 Not that I was paying attention.

20 (Laughter)

21 MR. BIGFORD: We have to set it up,

22 but I like state by state is to make sure

23 we have a voice from each locale.

24 MS. CANTRAL: John, do you have a

25 comment on that?

209

1 MR. WALTERS: I did.

2 IS there any restriction or any

3 reason why RPB members could not attend

4 various meetings held throughout this

5 region by various organizations?

6 Committee meetings are held in

7 Philadelphia and Baltimore, New York and

8 Hamilton Roads. Why can't we attend

9 those meetings representing the

10 Mid-Atlantic RPB and voice or listen to

11 the comments from those groups?

12 Likewise, Mid-Atlantic fisheries'

13 management counsel though Jack is a

14 representative to the board from the

15 counsel, could not members of this RPB

16 attend those meetings also to gain inside

17 as to what's being discussed at those

18 meetings with the guard on state seafood

19 industry?

20 Do you have meetings or are you a

21 lobbying group and could some of members

22 of the RPB be invited to your meetings to

23 find -- to listen and find out what's

24 being discussed?

25 Surf Riders, are members' meetings

210

1 being held and if the RPB is to gain an

2 understanding, acknowledgment, awareness

3 of what you are doing, would we be

4 welcomed to those meetings? To listen?

5 To converse have a conversation?

6 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. A lot of good

7 questions to get some reactions and

8 several people have their tents up. I

9 saw you, Joe, but maybe you are getting

10 in the queue to that particular point.

11 MR. ATANGAN: A little both.

12 MS. CANTRAL: Let's to go Joe,

13 Laura and Frank.

14 MR. ATANGAN: So part of the

15 engagement that Nick has been

16 participating in the northeast, one of

17 the things that they certainly tried to

18 do is have an RPB member. So it's not

19 Nick and John. They try to have an RPB

20 member present there to, I guess, though

21 presence and interest in what they are

22 doing. So that's certainly one aspect it

23 of.

24 I agree with you 100 percent we --

25 and I kind of try to include this in a

211

1 charter. I got some push back, was one

2 of the duties and responsibilities of RPB

3 members is to, in fact, represent the RPB

4 to these various organizations. I got

5 push back RPB members represent their

6 organizations and so I think that comment

7 was misunderstood a little bit. But I do

8 feel it's the responsibility of every RPB

9 member to be advocates for what the RPB

10 is doing and in doing so we need to be

11 able to participate in these

12 organizations as part of our outreach and

13 our stakeholder engagement activities.

14 The other point I want to make is

15 if you heard Nick in there, what they

16 have was an evolutionary process, you

17 know. They had a draft set of goals.

18 They took it out to the public --

19 engagement on that received to input for

20 are now modifying it and going back to

21 the public. Okay?

22 So, I -- one of the earlier

23 comments was well, you know, you already

24 had the draft goals and lost the public.

25 I couldn't disagree more. It gives a

212

1 starting point of departure to start the

2 conversation. It's not etched in stone.

3 This is what we are thinking and

4 interested in your inputs. Bring them

5 along.

6 I want to stress that this is an

7 interpretive process. Here is what we

8 are thinking. We are interested in what

9 you are thinking and we are willing to

10 modify as we go along to make sure we are

11 reaching the right objectives or

12 identifying the right goals and

13 proceeding in a way that is inclusive and

14 will meet, you know, that is heading

15 towards our vision yet which is still to

16 be articulated.

17 MS. CANTRAL: Laura.

18 MS. McKAY: One comment first that

19 I think we have as an RPB or as MARCO

20 started to do some of that kind of going

21 to other people's meetings. I know I

22 have presented to the Mid-Atlantic

23 Fishery Council about the MARCO portal

24 and had some discussions with them a

25 couple years ago now, but we routinely

213

1 get asked to various meetings and again,

2 it's often a resource constraint that how

3 much time do we have, who is paying for

4 the travel and that sort of thing, but I

5 wanted to ask Nick, too, in the northeast

6 as you go state by state, what resources

7 are the states using state by state in

8 order to engage public?

9 MR. NAPOLI: So, in we've done

10 state by state. That was through some of

11 Emrock's funding supporting the RPB.

12 That was last May and June? In October

13 when we go through their state advisory

14 bodies, it will be a combination, I

15 think.

16 In Massachusetts and Rhode Island

17 they have a structure set up and planning

18 process and so we are sort of leveraging

19 for that. And in other states we are

20 helping them to put that local or state

21 specific stakeholder group together and

22 so it will be probably a combination of

23 in time support.

24 MS. McKAY: We do have some of that

25 capability with or RPB grand and Monmouth

214

1 team. It's slow going, but we do have a

2 set of meetings coming up. Tony's been

3 working on organizing with ports and

4 meetings with commercial fishers over the

5 winter and so you know, we are not

6 totally starting from scratch. We have

7 some things in place and we also in our

8 region have some state by state, not

9 quite as far as Long -- New York just

10 finished its big ocean study. I had some

11 Section 309 grades from NOAA for CZM for

12 five-year ocean planning strategy, but

13 not every state has it. So it's going to

14 be kind of piece work, piecemeal a little

15 bit. How we can patch this together

16 given the resources we have to have

17 effective Stakeholder engagement process?

18 MS. CANTRAL: That's actually what

19 Nick was describing has been the case in

20 New England as well there is existing

21 advisory bodies. Some of your states you

22 have those as part of your coastal

23 management program or some other kind of

24 existing group you can tap in to and

25 where you don't have them figure out the

215

1 best mechanism for creating them. So

2 there is -- they are somewhat parallel

3 and let them evolve.

4 It's quality, quality, quality,

5 quality, quality to reiterate or expand

6 upon what I said before. Every state is

7 represented here in multiple agencies,

8 based throughout the region are here.

9 Resources are realized on our activities,

10 but if there is a meeting in New York,

11 could not the New York represents like

12 its port of New York being held? Or in

13 Delaware? Could the Pennsylvania

14 representative attend that maritime

15 meeting? Maybe a short drive, maybe

16 within commuting distance? I don't know.

17 But for those of us then southeast

18 Virginia to come to New York involves

19 some travel funds the next day that kind

20 of stuff, but there might be some

21 benefit.

22 Port of Baltimore, you are within

23 the commuting distance, no tolls to go

24 through either. So maybe there is an

25 opportunity at the very least will cost

216

1 time is about the biggest cost where no

2 funds are actually required to spend

3 overnight meals or whatever.

4 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. Let's hear

5 from Frank and then Mo.

6 MR. MACH: The bays and estuaries

7 can be righted by the Shinnecock Nation

8 and the states. Certainly the various

9 groups within its state areas could be

10 represented by the states. The states in

11 and MARCO have a grip on issues and

12 groups within their purview and

13 territories to bring issues to us that

14 they feel we can do something about.

15 As far as I think individual

16 members of the RPB visiting these groups,

17 it would be somewhat difficult because

18 how would you answer the question what

19 are you going to do for me? And I don't

20 think we are prepared to do that.

21 MS. BORNHOLDT: I was going to take

22 a slightly different approach. If we

23 have a liaison committee, MARCO can help

24 with the care and feeding to get out to

25 sector state -- it's important that we

217

1 can access it. That's important. But

2 that's not the last piece. I think we

3 have to try to leverage our opportunity.

4 It may be I can't answer the question,

5 that's U.S.D.A. But what I can do is

6 carry it back and I can contact Pedro or

7 whomever, say I was here. This is what I

8 heard, bring it back our table and have

9 that discussion.

10 The MARCO workshop said these are

11 going to tough times, tight budgets. We

12 have to think out of the box and I can go

13 up to Baltimore at a maritime meeting and

14 take notes on six people that cannot --

15 it's multi there. I might be there as --

16 but you know what? I'm listening as an

17 RPB. We can't stop there. We need to

18 find an additional tool we can use and

19 this is the beauty about not only do they

20 know who -- what the issues are on the

21 landscape. But Doug's out in the region

22 and others are too, but we have that

23 entree into what the issues are on the

24 landscape. We have the Shinnecock

25 Nation, the ability to get there and find

218

1 the issues of interest to the nation.

2 It's in the MARCO -- within our five

3 states.

4 I suggesting we maximize our

5 exposure with our day job, but we need

6 another tool in our toolbox.

7 MR. CAPOBIANCO: I wanted to make a

8 point or two and Nick can certainly

9 correct me if I'm mischaracterizing

10 anything, Emrock, but I want to put out

11 there that first of all, all of the fine

12 work that Emrock and the regional

13 planning body are doing. They have a

14 significant head start. It's more than a

15 couple months and it's to their credit,

16 one, to put out facts there.

17 Emrock is probably -- has better

18 capacity than MARCO to do work they are

19 doing now? I know that across the

20 MARCO's case and our discussions we talk

21 very regularly. We are trying to meet

22 that challenge and build some capacity

23 and be able to, to some degree, follow

24 that path obviously with our Mid-Atlantic

25 signature, but the kind of things that

219

1 Nick is talking about, take resources and

2 I think the good side of the story, they

3 are effective and actually, you know,

4 they thought it through. There is a lot

5 of successes. We could model similar

6 work on in the Mid-Atlantic but, you

7 know, I just -- somebody said earlier

8 about expectations. I just, you know,

9 I'm not sure we have the capacity to be

10 able to, you know, go where Emrock and

11 northeast RPB is going right now. We

12 certainly want that capacity, but I don't

13 want to give the impression tomorrow we

14 can do that, but I have the idea of learn

15 what they have done and they are doing

16 some great work.

17 It's going to take us a little bit

18 of time to get there. Thanks.

19 MR. ATANGAN: I want to support the

20 comments of my good friend from the Coast

21 Guard with regard to the approach of

22 getting regional planning body members

23 participating in areas, maybe not within

24 their area of expertise, but certainly

25 participating in meetings that are going

220

1 on within their geographic area that can

2 be easily reached. I go back to what

3 Roddy had mentioned earlier. Sometimes

4 it's all about just shutting up and

5 listening and taking in the information.

6 What I'm hearing from the stakeholder

7 they don't want us necessarily to be in a

8 transmit mode. So what they are looking

9 for is for us to listen. So by

10 participating in some of these individual

11 sector meetings, you know, whether it be

12 a Surf Riders meeting or meeting of a

13 local canoe club, I'm happy to

14 participate in. I know where it's at and

15 I can get there in a reasonable time.

16 I'm happy. I may not know the subject

17 but I can take good notes and pass it out

18 and say hey, you know what are we doing

19 about this? How are we addressing that?

20 This is there is some real value, whether

21 or not we have expertise in that

22 particular subject to go in there and

23 listen.

24 I'm a 30-military guy, spend 30

25 years in uniform. I'm being exposed to

221

1 things here never in my life I would

2 imagine I would be exposed to. You know?

3 And I'm relishing the opportunity. I'm

4 learning. I'm learning to be, you know,

5 becoming more sensitive about the issues

6 affecting fishermen. Fishermen was one

7 general category for me. I know there is

8 a difference between the scallop and

9 shellfish and you know, the recreational

10 fisherman. That's important, you know,

11 obvious to everybody in this room but

12 it's important you get that kind of, I

13 guess, sensitivity and appreciation for

14 those varied interests.

15 When I look at it I look at the

16 military ranges. I look at where

17 people -- where we can train and stuff

18 like that. I can always factor all of

19 these other issues in there, but it's

20 important I do. The only way I'll get

21 exposure to that is if I go in

22 undiscovered territory for me and start

23 learning by listening. So I really

24 support what John is talking about with

25 us going out and participating in these

222

1 meetings.

2 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

3 MR. RAMOS: We are making a point.

4 Tom made a good job of putting out the

5 proposal out there on the screen, but the

6 key thing here is the stakeholders and

7 input from them. Let the stakeholders

8 tell us what they would like to do and

9 then we can figure out how to participate

10 through that process instead of talking

11 about -- no offense, but the nickel and

12 diming about traveling. Surf Riders are

13 giving surf lessons. I'm on the road.

14 (Laughter) Let them figure out how they

15 want to be represented. Thanks.

16 MR. BIGFORD: All right. Like

17 maybe a dual-headed approach to what I've

18 been hearing is going to meetings. The

19 sectors might organize and the other one.

20 So they already plan on traveling. We

21 are not adding an imposition, they were

22 already going to meet. We might get a

23 little bit of their agenda or a social

24 networking opportunity before or after,

25 but the other approach, which might work

223

1 in some places, we organize the meeting

2 on their turf. They have an opportunity

3 to come to us and maybe we are the agenda

4 instead of a piece of that. Either one

5 might work. Both might work. All

6 depends on the capacity to do it. Both,

7 keeping in mind as we make plans is

8 absolutely crucial and certainly surf

9 lessons, Pedro?

10 MS. CANTRAL: Hear that, Matt?

11 MS. CHYTALO: Sorry. I wasn't at

12 some of the early meetings of the RPB. I

13 apologize for that, but I wanted to -- I

14 wasn't sure how they, the RPB formed and

15 what were some of the limitations on. I

16 don't know the factor rules or whatever

17 of having stakeholders or whatever

18 participate at part of the regional

19 planning body. Has that decision been

20 made and done? We are past that? I just

21 don't know. I -- just curious.

22 MS. BORNHOLDT: One of the

23 challenges, for example, is one with

24 renewable energy. How do you gather the

25 people together and have the frank

224

1 discussions and Tom and Sarah mentioned

2 the guys, federal guys are sitting at the

3 table and what those revisions are. I

4 can't have nongovernmental entities

5 having discussions about business.

6 MS. CHYTALO: Okay.

7 MS. BORNHOLDT: When the NCCOS went

8 and ocean counsel was involved, they

9 needed to recognize tribes, federal and

10 state -- recognize the agencies and we

11 are not it. We have these stakeholders

12 you don't see, you know, environmental

13 energy sitting here. You have to go

14 through here. What Tom and Sarah

15 articulated on the slide we may get there

16 and the method is a FACA chart, committee

17 perhaps, taking that to be -- to have

18 someone sitting here at the table

19 conducting business.

20 We have limited resources and time

21 as we say, but even up and --

22 opportunities over the next five years to

23 jump start some of the discussions

24 associated with goals and develop due

25 planning. And the key thing is being --

225

1 not have somebody -- not a governmental

2 sitting around this discussion.

3 That's -- that said, as what time Tom and

4 Sarah and many of us said, other ways to

5 get out there and we are kind of

6 challenged by the genesis in our -- we

7 were formed.

8 MS. CHYTALO: It does not preclude

9 us in the future going down that path.

10 MS. BORNHOLDT: Right. We can have

11 members, nongovernmental, the opportunity

12 for the path to be able to do that is

13 going through a FACA chartered committee

14 to do that. With that said you can have

15 a private entity make a presentation.

16 You can have a liaison committee other

17 than the federal body be able to act as

18 that information gathering so you can

19 still have that and not be a FACA

20 committee.

21 MS. CHYTALO: Thank you.

22 MR. BIGFORD: Just to clarify.

23 They were not be part of the RPB. If we

24 had a wind industry representative, they

25 would not be part of this, but a

226

1 specified way for them to contribute the

2 composition of the group is as Mo

3 suggested. Mo stated it's dictated by

4 the National Ocean Policy.

5 MS. CHYTALO: Okay.

6 MR. BIGFORD: Just state, federal

7 and tribal representatives. We can

8 engage with others, that's the FACA

9 subcommittee, but us. No, they can't sit

10 at this table.

11 MS. CHYTALO: Okay.

12 MS. CANTRAL: So, just this

13 discussion and your question this -- the

14 ideas you are all discussing right now

15 how to be creative giving those

16 constraints about how the -- to most

17 effectively and the most meaningful way

18 possible engage stakeholders starting now

19 in the absence of being able to establish

20 a format, FACA advisory committee.

21 So, the idea about the stakeholder

22 liaison committee that Sarah and Tom have

23 talked about is one way and there are

24 others and so let me just take a shot at

25 summarizing what I heard now and Tom and

227

1 Sarah, I think you two need to be

2 listening and helping me raise questions

3 still on your mind we have not taken up

4 during that session and make sure we had

5 an opportunity to do that.

6 My interpretation of what I heard

7 from this work group is it is important

8 to develop a suite of mechanisms for

9 communicating out to stakeholders from

10 getting input and from stakeholders.

11 So, there are lots of tools and

12 things that Sarah summarized about making

13 information and work product and other

14 information about the RPB available

15 through the website, through electronic

16 means, email, other mechanisms.

17 The notion of creating a network by

18 having access to participant lists to

19 cross pollenate and help people self

20 organize and talk about the work and what

21 you think about that work you understand

22 the RPB to be taking up and provide input

23 is another mechanism or set of ideas that

24 I think this group would like to hear.

25 We should have conversations about it and

228

1 the stakeholders -- Pedro's point is well

2 taken. You all can talk about the ideas.

3 You need to hear from the folks in the

4 room and hear today about what they all

5 want and what they need and their ideas

6 how to meet those needs.

7 The notion of now attending

8 meetings and using those meetings as an

9 opportunity to be ambassadors for the

10 process is a natural one. It has to

11 be -- there has to be the lens of reality

12 and you are busy people and so time and

13 managing the expectations, but what you

14 can do is another opportunity to have

15 forums and venues to have discussions and

16 learn from different interest groups

17 about anything about your process.

18 Looking at the model from the

19 northeast and deciding what of that model

20 works for this context is also now a good

21 opportunity and that may be something to

22 experiment with and see what they have

23 done would work for the Mid-Atlantic

24 given where you are and the kind of

25 capacity there is to carry it out. Which

229

1 brings me back to the liaison committee.

2 I didn't hear any discussion about other

3 than Sarah tying it up and Tom going into

4 some detail about it. So I would invite

5 you all to provide some more input to

6 what you think about that idea so that we

7 know, you know, what we are working with

8 here and to take things to the next step.

9 So Doug? Sarah?

10 MR. PABST: We are -- who we are

11 and have the best heads forward to get

12 the maximum amount of input from the

13 public and the liaison committee sounds

14 like the best option we have in the short

15 term. So we'll do multiple things at the

16 same time. I support that and the other

17 ideas about being able to go to meets and

18 outreach and talking to people about this

19 sort of thing that would be. I see us

20 going, but I'm anxious to hear more about

21 the public and circle back on that as

22 well.

23 MS. CANTRAL: Sarah?

24 MS. COOKSEY: Just a couple

25 comments. I'm not in any order, but we

230

1 already heard from at least one member of

2 the public from the National Ocean

3 Coalition he does want a FACA. I heard

4 him say that was up there, long-term

5 aspirations to consider that, because

6 there are some groups that do want that

7 more formal process.

8 We heard from Cindy and that sort

9 of like our model she said she

10 represented 113 different groups and the

11 only way to do this right now is to sort

12 of work in these -- we thought in the

13 smaller groups that mentioned up and to

14 not trigger a FACA they can talk to the

15 MARCO states and then the MARCO states

16 bring it back. But I cannot emphasize

17 enough this is the first thing -- MARCO

18 is offering up a lot of stuff here. We

19 need the agencies to at least meet us

20 halfway. It's the ocean policy and our

21 states only own out to three miles and

22 it's the nation's ocean out there.

23 So we cannot do this by ourselves

24 and even though the people in Delaware,

25 they want to talk to me, they know where

231

1 my office is. They know where the

2 general assembly is, have a direct

3 telephone line and people know who I am.

4 They still are going to want to see some

5 federal people at these meetings so you

6 guys have got to come and help us.

7 So what I was thinking and again

8 expectations. This is even doing this --

9 even having one first date which is not

10 enough. That's going to take resources

11 we have not exactly allocated. We have

12 some work going on, but I don't think

13 that's what people -- we want to do more.

14 We need help.

15 MR. ZEMBA: I want to thank Sarah

16 reminding everyone this is a federal

17 initiative and resource constraints are a

18 concern for the states.

19 MS. CANTRAL: Any other thoughts in

20 particular with the liaison committee?

21 We heard from Doug in support of the idea

22 there were expressions of appreciation

23 about the offer that MARCO is making for,

24 you know, significant effort. But the

25 point about it being a partnership is

232

1 something that you are all going to need

2 to keep in mind as the work proceeds.

3 Joe?

4 MR. ATANGAN: I'm not hearing

5 anything against it. So...

6 MS. CANTRAL: I'm trying to get us

7 to a point. We are ready to wrap this up

8 and open up the public comments.

9 MR. ATANGAN: Silence is census at

10 that point, but I'm not hearing any bad

11 arguments why we shouldn't proceed with

12 this approach. It's the alternative on

13 the table and absent another proposal

14 I -- giddy up.

15 MS. CANTRAL: Greg?

16 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Sure. So at the

17 April workshop I was extremely impressed

18 with the stakeholder panel we had at the

19 last session of the day. I chased them

20 all down at the social hour there

21 afterwards and I got to all of them

22 except one. I did ask some questions of

23 these folks and folks are you were not

24 there and do not know who they were, I

25 can remember most of them, Canmardin,

233

1 Cape Fresh, Minard, John Webber,

2 representing surf riding environmental,

3 Dick Green representing recreational

4 fishers and Eric Johannson representing

5 ports and bay activities. That was all

6 of them.

7 At any rate, what I have offered

8 and what I think might be a simple and

9 perhaps productive start and I have

10 reached out to all of them post-workshop

11 because when I spoke with them at the

12 workshop what occurred to me when I

13 talked to them they have some resources

14 of their own, this idea of whatever the

15 self word we are using -- self

16 organizing. There is some capacity there

17 for them to communicate with their

18 constituencies and related groups and

19 it's sort of a Cindy model.

20 These folks that were on that panel

21 have a very wide -- I think it makes more

22 sense to try to continue to talk with

23 them. A couple returned my inquiries and

24 I would be willing to continue to talk

25 about, you know, the kind of kinds of

234

1 capacities they could bring to that.

2 This -- what kinds of things they could

3 do and I'm offering that up as maybe a

4 way, you know, not sure exactly what the

5 first steps are in terms of the RPB's

6 desires, but I think we can come up with

7 some to come forward and try to pursue

8 that beginning of liaison committee.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Sounds like a place

10 to start endorsement and thoughts about

11 having it started to flesh it out. So

12 why don't we leave this discussion where

13 it is for the moment and turn to our

14 public comment. How does that sound?

15 MR. BIGFORD: Great.

16 MS. CANTRAL: I have eight folks

17 signed up for the second public comment

18 section and you all know the format. I

19 won't repeat it. I'll dive right in and

20 say you all each have three minutes.

21 We'll start with Margo Gopnik and second,

22 Ali Chase and third will be Brent

23 Greenfield.

24 MS. GOPNIK: (MORGAN GOPNICK)

25 Margo Gopnick, again. I'm going to

235

1 make a quick comment about all of the

2 stuff. As a lot of you know, one of the

3 focuses of my research over the years was

4 looking at how the public lands

5 management agencies, forest service, how

6 they have dealt with stakeholder

7 engagement. I went to separate

8 conferences. There are FACA and what

9 FACA means to stakeholder engagement.

10 What I hear, some of you have been

11 with the federal government a long time,

12 but I think we are being a little too

13 cautious about FACA we can't talk to

14 anybody. I'm exaggerating obviously, but

15 people have really rethought a lot of

16 those issues and it would be worth

17 talking to some people who have worked --

18 I don't mean worked around it, you know,

19 been sneaky, but really got some lawyers

20 at the table to say that's not what that

21 means.

22 So long as the federal government

23 didn't organize it and they are not

24 taking their following what the group

25 says, so long as input, I don't -- I'm

236

1 not going to tell you all of the details,

2 but there is a lot of information out

3 there to make FACA a lot less scary about

4 the didactics.

5 MS. CHASE: (ALI CHASE)

6 I want to thank all of you for

7 thinking about all of the different

8 options open and for pulling together a

9 range of things for listening to some of

10 the feedback. That's the groups in this

11 room and others that couldn't be here

12 today and provided what additional

13 outreach opportunities exist and that's

14 important.

15 I think that one of the key things

16 is whether it was a FACA process or not

17 there be a commitment to making the

18 materials from the meetings transparent

19 and open that as you did with this

20 meeting that materials be posted in

21 advance so people can prepare for the

22 meetings. That goes a long way so that

23 when people come they can participate.

24 And I think that another key thing

25 is to make sure that you are able to

237

1 provide opportunities for regular

2 proactive in engagement. Whether if you

3 are not listening to people, but

4 opportunities to comment and early in the

5 process as possible.

6 Some of the groups I work with have

7 given some thought to different

8 representatives that could be on some

9 sort of stakeholder liaison panel and the

10 folks that were at the MARCO meeting are

11 a good start. We also talked about

12 separating out the environmental NGO

13 factor and recreational user groups and I

14 think there is more -- definitely

15 surfing. We've all wanted to go today.

16 But you know, swimming, boating, paddling

17 bird watching, we've not heard about

18 that, diving. The tourism folks need to

19 be somehow engaged in this and that's not

20 necessarily my sector, but that's an

21 important piece of this puzzle. Marine

22 trades, marina, shipbuilding. We talked

23 about wind, aqua cultures, commercial

24 fishing, fishing imports. I think it's

25 probably worth taking a step and thinking

238

1 about the different sectors you want to

2 engage and maybe being open to having

3 multiple representatives from sectors if

4 need be. It does not have to be one

5 person. If you need that you've got a

6 wide range of interests in that sector

7 throughout the room. Nothing is stopping

8 you from adding additional people to that

9 or encouraging them to be engaged.

10 One other thing shows up a little

11 bit in the charter, we have not talked

12 about it. It's more important to

13 establish science advisory academics.

14 Add subject matter, experts working in

15 the region or engaged in the regions'

16 resources, because there is a lot of

17 technical material that's going to be

18 coming up. I think that's important to

19 have them engaged pretty early on.

20 Thank you for all of the options

21 you've laid out and I think all of us

22 here look forward to working with you.

23 MR. GREENFIELD: (BRENT GREENFIELD)

24 My name is Brent Greenfield. I'm

25 pleased to make the following comments

239

1 again on behalf of the National Ocean

2 Police Coalition regarding Mid-Atlantic

3 RPB stakeholder engagement.

4 According to the most recent

5 federal data, the Mid-Atlantic states

6 comprised of Delaware, New Jersey, New

7 York Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia

8 generated over $3 trillion in economic

9 outpour in 2012. As RPB activities could

10 result in impacts to some of this regions

11 most significant economic contributors,

12 it is vital that these and other critical

13 interests that could generate additional

14 economic output in the future not be shut

15 out of the process and formal engagement

16 opportunities.

17 An adequate seat at the table for

18 user groups should mean more than just an

19 opportunity to comment, attend a

20 listening session or complete a survey.

21 Rather, the very groups who could be

22 impacted by actions that might be taken

23 by this body should be given a meaningful

24 and active voice and role in this group's

25 activities with their inpour helping to

240

1 guide a truly collaborative process and

2 outcome.

3 Efforts to achieve a collaborative

4 process and outcome can be enhanced and

5 furthered if consensus means that such

6 activities have the support and backing

7 of the commercial and recreational

8 interests that support or seek to support

9 jobs and economic activity in the region.

10 These groups represent the human elements

11 that could be impacted and they too

12 should have a seat at the table with

13 their governmental counterparts and be

14 directly represented on this body.

15 In the event that the regrettable

16 decision to exclude nongovernmental

17 representatives from RPB membership is

18 left unchanged, other mechanisms for user

19 group engagement including the

20 establishment of a formal Federal

21 Advisory Committee should be implemented

22 before the RPB conducts any further

23 activities.

24 While well-intended, efforts to

25 create something short of a formal

241

1 Federal Advisory Committee, such as the

2 establishment of a Stakeholder Liaison

3 Committee that would communicate with

4 third-party rather than the RPB itself,

5 would be insufficient to ensure an

6 outcome that adequately reflects a

7 collaborative, consensus-based result and

8 the critical input and perspectives of

9 the commercial and recreational

10 communities.

11 The RPB's stakeholder working group

12 has noted that the RPB currently lacks

13 the capacity to support a formal Federal

14 Advisory Committee and that the RPB must

15 ensure that the stakeholder engagement

16 strategy chosen does not trigger the

17 Federal Advisory Committee Act. In this

18 case, the RPB must embrace rather than

19 avoid the applicability of the Federal

20 Advisory Committee Act.

21 To be sure, the challenges of

22 operating with limited resources are

23 understandable. However, if

24 circumstances are such that the RPB lacks

25 the capacity to establish a formal

242

1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee under the

2 Federal Advisory Committee Act, the RPB

3 seemingly lacks the ability and should

4 not endeavor to engage in this effort.

5 Thank you for the opportunity to

6 comment.

7 MR. GOVE: (MATT GOVE)

8 I look forward to the RPB surfing,

9 when that's going to be next summer and

10 please come to any of our chapter

11 meetings. They are open and that would

12 be fantastic. Most of them are at night.

13 You are welcome.

14 Just a couple things. I think one

15 has been said already, great stuff.

16 Having more regional meetings like this

17 is definitely key, talked about by state

18 and mentioned one of per state its not

19 enough. We want to highlight that we

20 sent recommendations in a letter and

21 others where to have meetings and I think

22 there was 10 or 12 locations. I lived on

23 Long Island one for a while and people

24 from Montauk will not drive to the middle

25 of Long Island or New York, so I'm sure

243

1 it's the same places. The documents do

2 need to be out before the meeting. This

3 worked well this time, having a little

4 bit of time to look. It would be even

5 better to look at documents before each

6 meeting.

7 We do want to make sure that the

8 comments we are giving and things were we

9 are sending are considered and it would

10 be great to get expenses as we had that

11 so far, but people want to know if they

12 make an opportunity come to a meeting and

13 give a comment that's being heard and

14 things are going to perhaps change

15 because of it.

16 And then just wanted to mention

17 that Surf Riding in the Mid-Atlantic has

18 reached out to other groups. We are

19 trying to reach out to other recreational

20 groups like divers, ocean swimmers,

21 coastal bird watchers, beach goers.

22 Anyone that goes to the beach. We are

23 trying to reach out to that group. It's

24 a big group of people to make them aware

25 but wanted to make you aware of that

244

1 effort and that's it. Thanks.

2 MS. ZIPF: (CINDY ZIPF)

3 I have a list of thoughts I wanted

4 to share and I hope I'm allowed to go

5 through them. We are ahead of schedule

6 so I'm hopefully able to get through

7 them. We did sign onto a letter that

8 NRDC -- I don't know -- jibes. We all

9 have them.

10 It's sort of the deference -- or

11 deference to MARCO should really be

12 thought through and we would like to talk

13 more about that because I think so far

14 the MARCO public involvement has not been

15 robust as it should or could be. There

16 have been a couple meetings over the

17 years since 2009 it was established,

18 right? So that's not necessarily a

19 really robust public involvement. Maybe

20 there is more happening now or soon, but

21 I think that there needs to be some

22 thought given to that rather than to

23 deferring, ask the public that's been

24 engaged whether that's so far a good

25 system.

245

1 I think that you know I would like

2 to thank the RPB. We had significant

3 issue early on knowing who was

4 participating in the meeting from the

5 public participating and so today there

6 was a list of attendees and the sign up.

7 You asked people whether or not we can

8 share their information, some that would

9 be helpful we try to engage our citizens

10 to know who is signed up already would be

11 helpful so we know we are getting our

12 message out for people to participate.

13 I guess questions that I have about

14 some of the, you know, determining how

15 much resources we would like we are going

16 to have in participating in this process

17 is accountability, you know. Who, if we

18 don't like a direction or something, who

19 is the accountable once in -- if you were

20 an elected official we could vote you

21 out, but that's not the case.

22 The last of -- lack of resources

23 really troubles me. There is a large

24 amount of resources up in the New England

25 area to facilitate meaningful comment and

246

1 they had grassroots bottom approach up

2 there to look. You should look at that

3 model. What role and commitment to the

4 participation, would the liaison have to

5 the -- what could I argue that we have

6 this important role to play as a liaison

7 if we were even considered to be one.

8 Sort of what is the -- how would we be --

9 how would we be incorporated in the RPB

10 given the FACA limitations.

11 I think the -- I see -- I don't

12 know if you thought about it and of a

13 specific ombudsman for the public,

14 whether it be for wind or for the public

15 interests to actually sit on the body so

16 that's not necessarily a specific public

17 representative, but a public

18 representative that we can be sure we

19 have issues of concern we could go to

20 this person and make sure that they are

21 at the table. That's a thought.

22 You know, I think the fact that

23 there was not an evening -- first of all,

24 the agenda got out a little late. One

25 week notice is a little rough and I had

247

1 made commitments this evening, so I'll

2 not, unfortunately be able to enjoy the

3 fuzzy beverages and pizza, but I'm going

4 to a candidates forum to be asking state

5 officials what their positions are on

6 different issues. It's connected to what

7 you are doing here. We'll have some

8 feedback, an evening session, real

9 evening session would be an important

10 one.

11 There is a lot of people working

12 one and two jobs just to survive these

13 days. Trying to find time to contribute

14 is difficult for people which is why they

15 rely on -- or suggests which is why they

16 are here to represent their views, but it

17 would be great and I think the idea of

18 coming to some of our meetings is a

19 wonderful one as well. I think that

20 covers some of my lists.

21 And I just wanted to emphasize

22 that, you know, there has been a lot of

23 work done and hopefully there will be an

24 appreciation of that from the public. As

25 I mentioned earlier, we've come a long

248

1 way and want to clean up the clean ocean

2 economy.

3 MR. RAPP: (RON RAPP)

4 I represent a company that plans

5 and manufactures and installs fiber optic

6 cables around the world. One of the two

7 major contributors used to be part of

8 AT&T but a lot of separation and mergers

9 resulted in what we now call T.E. subcom,

10 but we are the same company. I'm a

11 member of a group called North American

12 Sub Cable Owners Association. A

13 colleague of mine, Bob Wargo is the

14 chairman of that group.

15 We are here to make the committee

16 aware, that I'm sure you are already

17 aware, to highlight the fact of part of

18 undersea optic cables. I didn't hear too

19 much discussion of that sector, maybe

20 it's our fault for not engaging the right

21 people enough and some discussion. It's

22 really part of maritime. I wanted to

23 make the point it's really a significant

24 enabler of our economy in the U.S. Ten

25 miles down the beach there are six global

249

1 international cables that come ashore and

2 further down in Tuckerton another six

3 cables, half of the internet traffic,

4 financial data, telecomm coming into the

5 United States.

6 So it's suggestive I give this

7 speech around the world and Asia. Many

8 people don't realize 98 percent of

9 international commerce communication is

10 underneath sea cable and not satellite.

11 I want to make sure the plans are put

12 forward and the optics are put in place.

13 There are corridors and routes remaining

14 available to bring these cables ashore

15 and the existing cables we maintained and

16 new routes and energy planned in this

17 part of the world. It's critical

18 infrastructure regarded in many countries

19 and I think that's being recognized more

20 and more as we go forward.

21 You know in its industry have been

22 planning routes and engaging stakeholders

23 like commercial fishers and other

24 stakeholders to make clear we plan the

25 routes away from the best fishing grounds

250

1 as best we can and we are happy to engage

2 this body to do the same thing going

3 forward and I know we've been doing that

4 with BOEM and other and Army Corps of

5 Engineers as a matter of course as we get

6 permits for cables.

7 I welcome anybody that's never been

8 on a cable ship to come to Baltimore for

9 a tour if anybody would like to do that.

10 It's an interesting business and very

11 exciting business and important one.

12 Second comment, very quickly, maybe

13 I personally don't understand and maybe

14 this can be articulated, essentially the

15 authority of this board and its product

16 and how that would impact say Army Corps

17 of Engineers or BOEM for letting leases

18 or giving permits. It's clearly

19 important work this board will do and

20 perhaps it will be a referenced document

21 or advisory board to those permitting

22 authorities, but that can be something

23 articulated in some of the documents and

24 objectives. Thank you.

25 MR. WILLIAMSON: (JOHN WILLIAMSON)

251

1 I'm with the Ocean Conservancy and

2 Leadership. This the fish community. In

3 general, we are here in Mid-Atlantic and

4 New England to assist them into engaging

5 this planning process to engage them.

6 What is going on, I've heard a lot

7 of good discussion. I've agreed with

8 some points and disagreed with others,

9 but it's been very good in all. A lot of

10 people thinking clearly about this state

11 engagement I like the idea of a state

12 liaison committee.

13 Speaking specifically about self

14 organizing in the fishing industry as

15 somebody who has been trying to organize

16 fishermen for 30 years, concept of

17 organizing fishing industry doesn't

18 really fit the community very well. It's

19 probably not the right way to think about

20 doing it. I'm sure it's a concept that

21 would work in other industries, but the

22 fishing industry by -- with exceptions

23 Garden State Seafood being one, but by

24 and large fishing industry does not

25 organize in a representative fashion.

252

1 But on the other hand, if the subject

2 were the blue fin tuna today, that

3 information can distribute from Maine to

4 Virginia in 24 hours. Okay? The fishing

5 industry is organized for information

6 distribution in a very complex network of

7 relationships.

8 So, if you want to begin to develop

9 a narrative, which is I think you are

10 doing, you are developing a conversation

11 with this user group. You need to have

12 one or two people who are dedicated to

13 understanding what that network is, where

14 the notes of communication happen. You

15 have a very diverse set of communities,

16 not just one fishing community, many

17 different communities, varieties of

18 interest. Very widely distributed remote

19 locations within that you have a network

20 of pier leaders, p-i-e-r, who are the

21 opinion leaders, opinion farmers in their

22 communities and other people listen to

23 and queue off you want to be talking to.

24 You want to identify those pier leaders

25 out and send people out to talk to them

253

1 and develop the narrative and talk to

2 them.

3 MR. DiDOMENICO: (GREG DiDOMENICO)

4 Greg DiDomenico, Garden State

5 Seafood Association.

6 First of all, I don't want to

7 support the comments of Mr. Greenfield

8 from the National Ocean Policy Coalition,

9 but you know, urge you to consider what

10 he is saying and I think his

11 recommendations would be best for the

12 commercial industry and a lot of other

13 groups. State -- used to a formal

14 process they are used to being in

15 critical situations where there is

16 fisheries management, issues very

17 difficult to get through and we've been

18 getting through to them, but I urge you

19 to consider from formal process.

20 With that said I also believe that

21 the informal part can be just as

22 important and helpful but I caution only

23 one thing: If you are going to come to

24 meetings and if you go out and get

25 this -- to the these communities, I think

254

1 what you are going to find is that people

2 will not have a lot to say until they

3 know what they are talking about.

4 Joe, your comments hit home to me

5 because listening is very important, but

6 the people that I represent are on the

7 road a hundred days a year, work round

8 the clock. They want to come to a

9 meeting if it's not a social meeting.

10 They want to get down to business, not

11 have the time to talk about things that

12 for them right now are too vague to

13 really, truly understand. I would

14 caution you before you do that there is

15 have some specifics of what you want to

16 hear from people.

17 Lastly, I would like to say there

18 is one issue that people will ask you,

19 certainly from the commercial industry.

20 If you do go out into the public like

21 I've seen it in a lot of ways. We've

22 been told regional planning bodies are

23 not regulatory bodies. Yet, the

24 executive order for this group says all

25 federal agencies and departments that are

255

1 represented on the National Ocean Council

2 shall quote, comply with council,

3 certified coastal and marine special

4 plans.

5 So, now this seems to indicate to

6 us that the RPB creates a plan and all

7 federal agencies are required by the

8 executive order to comply with that. So,

9 is that true will in regulatory capacity?

10 Will these agencies be forced to employ

11 projects it plans? If that is -- that's

12 a regular free body, that's what people

13 want to know. What impact will this have

14 on the Regional Fishery Council. If you

15 can't answer it, I can tell you you are

16 going to have a difficult time during the

17 rest of that meeting. Thank you.

18 MS. PELLIGRINO: I really a

19 appreciate this and I really appreciate

20 you guys being so nice and polite right

21 now. I'll -- also hearing us.

22 As you know, I've or maybe you

23 don't, but I kind of like been here a lot

24 in different capacities and in speaking

25 with you all I'm a paddler and I paddle

256

1 from Miami to Maine with National

2 Environmental and the -- and East Coast

3 Riders Foundation. That was when I first

4 hired of Oceans 21, which is the

5 precursor to what our nation it has

6 changed.

7 Since the -- it was idealistic,

8 huge bulky oceans. Twenty-one it was

9 there are those of us who still -- have

10 high hopes for its ideal set for the --

11 in that oceans 21.

12 Do I need to go into that?

13 In 2008 I partnered with NRDC and

14 as advocacy things for some policy. This

15 is exactly why we need your stakeholder

16 involvement. We need those paddles, were

17 extremely supported by a huge bulk of

18 people. It was -- they are media

19 campaign events and really, understood

20 the need for healthy oceans which is why

21 the stakeholder involvement which was

22 extremely important. So many people got

23 behind the ideal. It's not just energy

24 and serving conservers.

25 Cindy Klein has a huge collection

257

1 of folks and who is a real strong voice

2 for the ocean, has so many supporters

3 it's kind of silly. She's been pushed

4 aside a little bit and Surf Rider, you

5 have the reason. It's been polite and

6 needs so for with -- is that people have

7 bought into this whole ideal we are

8 behind. We see the need for this. We do

9 want involvement because we do understand

10 that conflicts will arise. We want to be

11 able to properly voice our experience

12 concerns. So it's one party that gets to

13 have the floor all of the time.

14 As far as like it's whole regional

15 planning bodies and it dictates at the

16 policy, the National Ocean Policy, broad

17 spectrum overlooking the whole regional

18 plan body. It has to be done more

19 practical. It can be applied where

20 track -- practical they are not the

21 independent at all. So you, there is

22 that. But really, we -- I could go on

23 and on.

24 I'm going to start babbling any

25 moment. Basically all been said before

258

1 but you know, when it comes to two

2 things, like we've got the push for the

3 track, destructive strives and seismic

4 testing and this is where the public also

5 wants to be involved and find out where

6 you guys fit in.

7 When I actually testified in Edison

8 about the proposed elbows. I told the

9 guys sitting at the table, have you heard

10 about the MARCO planning tool? It's

11 amazing amount of data. It's certainly

12 by no means complete, but what they have

13 there will tell you right what way.

14 If you look at the maps the cable

15 guy talking, you know, not cable TV, the

16 underground communication cables, if you

17 look at the MARCO planning tool, which is

18 a must go, you see where they want to put

19 this port is absolutely inside.

20 Have you guys even looked at this?

21 If you look at it for other uses it looks

22 like a huge com -- complicated to me, but

23 anyway. So that's why, you know, so far

24 there has been no conflicts and rowdy

25 kids. We feel supportive of the process

259

1 and as long as you are -- we will go to

2 reach out and listen to us.

3 MS. CANTRAL: So I think this wraps

4 up our second public comment section.

5 There are more there that are planned for

6 the agenda tomorrow. Those are you with

7 us tomorrow, we hope you come back

8 tomorrow and you'll take advantage of

9 those opportunities and that -- if you

10 are able to stay this evening for pizza

11 and informal discussion you are part of

12 that.

13 We have some time now for some

14 reflection what was offered, some ideas

15 and reactions about your ideas regarding

16 stakeholder engagement. It's your

17 opportunity to talk about ideas that

18 you've heard, things that occurred to you

19 as you are listening to what or

20 stakeholders had to share. I see a

21 couple things, Laura, Greg -- Laura, let

22 me start with you.

23 MS. McKAY: I wanted to assure Ali

24 from NRDC that the stakeholder group that

25 Greg was talking about we had at the

260

1 April meeting did include an academic

2 representative. It was Steve Ross with

3 the University of North Carolina at

4 Wilmington, who has been doing the

5 research having that academic advisory

6 has been on our -- as well.

7 MR. PABST: This is a lot of ghosts

8 of social planning past, present and

9 future to some degree and I think a lot

10 of these comments are really

11 complementary to the discussions we've

12 been having and can accommodate a lot of

13 it. The rub is going to be a lot that

14 detail pops up, that conflict, how we

15 navigate through that conflict. Right

16 now we are all talking broadly about

17 ideals and goals. There is something

18 going to be its decision made, but that

19 is a group we have not figured out how to

20 deal with that. There is a secret packet

21 we have not figured that out. It's

22 coming. I think that's going to be a

23 test case as soon as we can tee that up

24 and start having that. If we can agree

25 and you disagree, how do you move

261

1 forward? How do you figure that sooner

2 than later?

3 MS. COOKSEY: I'm just reflecting

4 on the fact I wax and wane between

5 feeling like I understand it and feeling

6 like I'm completely confused. I did hear

7 two people who seem that they studied the

8 documents fairy well and we have a letter

9 signed by many other organizations that

10 are recommending we get de facto. I

11 heard some support for our proposal.

12 MS. CANTRAL: Other thoughts?

13 Andy?

14 MR. ZEMBA: I found the comment

15 about the regulatory requirements or this

16 could be a regulatory body to be an

17 interesting question and perhaps that's

18 maybe something that could be brought to

19 the national social counsel for some

20 clarification. If I were asked that

21 question I would have answered the way

22 we've been moving forward, but the

23 gentleman that brought it up has raised

24 something we should get an answer for.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. Any other

262

1 reflections?

2 MS. McKAY: It does sound like what

3 we are hearing from the stakeholders they

4 would like both kind of informal

5 stakeholder liaison and the FACA, but one

6 thing I think Cindy was saying is that

7 they would like a representative to sit

8 on the RPB itself. But my understanding

9 is this can't happen and so just want to

10 make sure that's understood. If we set

11 up a FACA and that's a possibility, but

12 that does not put anyone on this board

13 because this board has to be just

14 governmental. That's the way it was set

15 up by -- through ocean policy.

16 MR. MACH: Yes, I think it was

17 stated earlier that we are considering

18 the liaison and FACA may be something

19 that comes off in the future, but needs

20 to be mentioned. It was used by a number

21 of people as evolutionary and we don't

22 need to jump in and get a good grip and

23 direction and goals.

24 MS. CANTRAL: Tom and Gwynne?

25 MR. BIGFORD: Getting back to the

263

1 discussion on scope. We were talking

2 about north and south and maybe, although

3 I don't know representatives of states,

4 could there be an ex officio position

5 like the ombudsman-type position

6 mentioned make a nonvoting member that

7 might move a us a little step where we

8 are hearing but not --

9 MS. CANTRAL: Maybe something that

10 we could look into getting some clarity

11 on that approach. Gwynne?

12 MS. SCHULTZ: The fact the issue

13 having served on the de facto issues gets

14 six months to get started and usually a

15 multi-year effort and to one of the

16 questions I think we have to investigate

17 this to the future is as the -- our

18 coalitions are not to rotate so the

19 federal lead would rotate from the

20 Department of Interior to another agency.

21 How did that mesh with -- actually create

22 a fact? Does each subsequent agency have

23 to start from scratch? There is, if we

24 went that direction, it would be a lot of

25 logistical issues that need to be figured

264

1 out. So that's why -- is that something

2 further down the road? I would hate to

3 do anything until that was resolved. I

4 appreciate the issue wanting that

5 immediate FACA or don't do anything, but

6 I think that it would not serve our

7 interests, you know, to not do anything

8 until such time as if we do form a

9 formal --

10 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. So, Marty

11 and then Mo and Sarah.

12 MR. ROSEN: Comments would call for

13 Mo, they call the process understandable

14 and appropriate, but along with that

15 conversation is recognize resources to do

16 that. I'm wondering if there needs to be

17 a legal resource or something at some

18 point, find somebody to kind of make this

19 happen. I think you can have the

20 biggest, grandest plans you want without

21 (inaudible) If you can't back it up, you

22 really can't kind suppress expectations

23 and I think there has to be another

24 effort to make the planning.

25 MS. BORNHOLDT: That part I'll

265

1 address to Joe and Tom, who also are

2 members of the northeast RPB. For the

3 efforts we did with regard to this

4 outreach, how did they gather resources

5 first thing and second thing, I know that

6 a sister agency within an interior

7 borough line management is one of their

8 requirements that they do not -- they

9 cannot be the financial membership

10 manager of that, but yet they can have

11 the collaborative discussions. So we

12 know that we can have a group of folk

13 talk to us it's just a matter of who is

14 in charge, who manages them and assigns

15 that.

16 This is a decision, getting back to

17 my point about where does the northeast

18 get its dollars. What kind of

19 arrangement, you know. So it's easy to

20 say it's state partners, but still an

21 issue associated with support.

22 MR. ATANGAN: I can respond. The

23 real issue is grant money.

24 MS. COOKSEY: Reflecting on Cindy's

25 comment of accountability, I would like

266

1 to be more clear. The state relies on a

2 model who is accountable for either a

3 response to say what we did with the

4 comments. If there is something, that we

5 should deal with it and also we have

6 not -- I am not an expert. What could

7 FACA bring to this process that we would

8 wouldn't want? There must we some good

9 in it.

10 And then also, just thinking about

11 the record, robust but I think what -- I

12 think most of the people in this room

13 would agree is robust is again I don't

14 think it's something that at least now we

15 can do. Again, expectations.

16 Oh, sorry. The most important

17 thing I wanted to say before that ramble,

18 I like the idea of the scientific and

19 advisory something. I find that's very

20 helpful often to have a team of experts

21 you can go to. You get to that type of

22 question and I need some advice.

23 MS. BORNHOLDT: You know, kind of

24 taking a key from Joe's comments we can

25 ask and invite people to make

267

1 presentations on particular issues for us

2 with regard to having access to a

3 recognized expert in a field or even a

4 peer leader like John was describing the

5 challenge to repeatedly go back and have

6 the appearance of having that kind of

7 advisory relationship.

8 So, again, maybe the task is to

9 think out of the box to tap in whether

10 it's taking a -- looking at the

11 university systems, whether they are

12 taking a first look at fishers who use

13 the resources. We can do some of that.

14 The challenges to have that regular

15 standing body you can tap and sign. I

16 think we need to think about what we need

17 now and take a look at. Can we acquire

18 the resources to support something that

19 is perhaps more permanent with it's MARCO

20 or eventually through --

21 MS. CANTRAL: Anything else? Any

22 other thoughts? Joe.

23 MR. ATANGAN: Yeah. I'm brand new

24 to this FACA thing. I get confused every

25 time it's brought up. But I do see a

268

1 couple, you know, maybe I've seen it too,

2 black and white here. Either we don't

3 want to do anything until we initiate a

4 FACA or we try to move forward in a

5 formal process and get something done

6 sooner rather than later. In the process

7 of doing so, develop a case in an

8 argument for the funds and the resources

9 that are going to be required to support

10 a FACA effort. Okay? I don't think we

11 have enough to go to whatever the parent

12 organization that's going to set up the

13 funds for this FACA to go and say, hey, I

14 need to do a FACA. The question is going

15 to be what for and you know what -- what

16 are they going to be engaged? I don't

17 think we are there yet. At least not to

18 the left of -- we can get the funds

19 required to do that.

20 What I'm certainly arguing is we

21 understand there is great concern because

22 there is not the FACA thing. Okay? I

23 get it. I don't understand it. There is

24 concern out there. We don't fully

25 understand it. Doing nothing at this

269

1 point and waiting to establish a fact is

2 not a good option either. There are

3 things we can do. There is a process we

4 can employ here and going through that

5 process we help us develop up a case for

6 what we will need and going to use this

7 FACA group for.

8 I guess I'm, for example, in dull

9 sense allows us to proceed and go through

10 the discovery process, hopefully do no

11 harm in the process, but I think it will

12 pay dividends downstream to build the

13 case to establish that FACA it required.

14 MS. CHYTALO: Go ahead.

15 I agree we should start to

16 establish the path towards the FACA at

17 this point. But for the interim we have

18 those other options of going out to

19 people as much as we can, but also having

20 this element, the sector groups or

21 something like that we can get some

22 feedback from and that we can get the

23 breath of the issues we need to find out,

24 you know, the highs and lows on. You

25 know, we don't want to, we can't expect

270

1 them to get a consensus opinion of this

2 as long as they give us the breath of the

3 information and types of issues that

4 people really care about and bring that

5 to the people and that when those issues

6 do come up through those groups we do

7 have some sort of a formal response back

8 to them to say yes no or something like

9 that. Just so they know that not only

10 they were hurt, but there is a rationale

11 as to why we want can't go in that

12 direction or yes, we are going to take

13 some of that direction. That would help

14 to creating more of a partnership with

15 stakeholders.

16 MS. CANTRAL: Great.

17 MR. ROSEN: If we pursue an more

18 informal process which is fine, I assume

19 that will require some level, some

20 communication plan. Make sure the

21 messages are consistent, the process are

22 consistent and the delivery, exchange of

23 information is consistent. A whole

24 structure to require what works and is --

25 that in itself is a small effort, but so

271

1 I think that needs to be set up before

2 anybody goes out and there and starts

3 talking.

4 MS. CANTRAL: In formal engagement

5 does not mean there is no effort

6 required. There has to be some planning

7 and organization and structure and

8 maintenance that goes along with that.

9 So why don't I take a shot of a couple of

10 some key points I've heard in this

11 discussion over its course of the

12 afternoon. One thing seems clear, there

13 is a desire for more responsive, to take

14 stakeholder engagement exactly. How is

15 that is going to create activity? There

16 is an interest in having both formal and

17 informal mechanisms structures, call it

18 what you will, in place including a lot

19 of interests in it establishing a formal

20 advisory committee that would be stood up

21 under FACA. And there is also a

22 recognition that it's going to be hard to

23 do that right away and does take some

24 time, does take some resources. It is

25 something that is interesting to this

272

1 group and you've heard the stakeholders

2 while looking into how to do that,

3 pursuing all of the details about how to

4 do that in the interim.

5 Some of these ideas that have been

6 offered including a stakeholder liaison

7 committee will get you started and enable

8 you some mechanisms for engagement and

9 input that you have the ability to

10 support right now with regard to

11 establishing a stakeholder liaison

12 committee also dealing that is detailed

13 that needs to be worked out including the

14 notion of accountability you describe to

15 those place on what their role is, what

16 their psyched up for and getting out of

17 the clear about that. There would also

18 be some structure and some maintaining of

19 that effort that would be required.

20 A few other things that I heard are

21 related to how best to get the science

22 and technical expertise into the process,

23 whether it is by identifying those

24 experts and having made presentations or

25 some other kind of official role that you

273

1 can design that needs to be gone through,

2 this longer term of what your overall

3 input or engagement will be.

4 One take away or next step for this

5 group is to explore the viability of some

6 kind of ex officio or ombudsman role that

7 could be a seat that someone who

8 participates in discussion, but is not a

9 member of the body. That might be

10 something that could be explored.

11 There is also an acknowledgment

12 that the RPB has an ongoing job to do to

13 be clear in communicating what its role

14 is, what its assignment is, what it's

15 authority is or is not. And you heard

16 that in a few of the comments and coupled

17 with that is a need to be clear in going

18 to any meetings and engaging stakeholder,

19 whether going to stakeholder meetings and

20 participating or inviting them to your

21 meetings and some kind of participation,

22 but being really clear about what the

23 agenda is and business at hand is and

24 being respectful of people's time no one

25 has no one has enough time. No one in

274

1 this room does.

2 Final two things I've noted in my

3 listening. Some mechanisms for speaking

4 of time and respect, being respectful of

5 people's -- teams of people input and

6 acknowledging it's being fact forward

7 into the process. I know it's this group

8 is very appreciative of the input and is

9 listening and wants to be incorporating

10 it and wants to make sure there is the

11 right kind of feedback. That's somewhat

12 related but parties' communications and

13 communications, planning to deliver

14 messages and being consistent about those

15 is sort of a cross cutting need and

16 something you have. At least I have not

17 heard too much about, but will need to be

18 factored into the work as it develops and

19 operates. So those are highlights I

20 heard from your discussion about

21 stakeholder engagement and I guess taking

22 you back to a couple points that were

23 made earlier that don't have necessarily

24 to do with this topic, just taking us

25 back to tomorrow. We have volunteered to

275

1 take a shot at a new slide, a new set of

2 bullets for the draft and present those

3 for further reflection and perhaps what

4 can be -- I'm repeating myself. I want

5 you people taking about it. That needs

6 to be part of the revisiting of that

7 slide.

8 Well, three things. What do you

9 think about the revisions and how do you

10 intend to leave this room and then be

11 prepared to have some discussion with

12 stakeholders about what it suggests and

13 what do you think about this idea of

14 getting to the next level of details in

15 terms of objective and how would you like

16 to approach that.

17 So I think those are things we need

18 to talk about tomorrow as part of that

19 discussion. But as for today I know we

20 are a little bit ahead of schedule I'm

21 not sure exactly what else we can

22 accomplish today unless I'm missing

23 something since I am the facilitator.

24 MR. MACH: You got it all.

25 MS. CANTRAL: I want to ask about

276

1 if we adjourn now at a quarter to six, is

2 there a way we can start these earlier or

3 keep things on track and expect to see

4 people over pizza at 6:30 or what?

5 MS. McKAY: Move everything up 15

6 minutes and go home earlier.

7 MS. CANTRAL: Let me be clear. The

8 plan is to start the informal networking

9 event at 6:15 upstairs. And we'll -- I

10 adjourn the moment and see you in roughly

11 half an hour upstairs and down the hall

12 and over pizza.

13 (Whereupon, the meeting was

14 adjourned at 5:45 p.m.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

--------------------------------------------------x

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL OCEAN PLANNING,

Inaugural Regional Planning Body (RPB)Meeting

--------------------------------------------------x

September 25, 2013 9:50 a.m.

Held at: Wilson Hall Auditorium Monmouth University 400 Cedar Avenue West Long Branch, New Jersey 07764

JOSEPH ALBANESE & ASSOCIATES Certified Shorthand Reporters 250 Washington Street, Suite A Toms River, New Jersey 08754 (732) 244-6100 reporter@albaneseassoc.com

2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2

3 FACILTATOR: LAURA CANTRAL, Meridian Institute

4CO-LEADS

5GWYNNE SCHULTZ

Maryland, MARCO6

7

MAUREEN BORNHOLDT Bureau of Ocean Energy Management8

9

10 PANEL MEMBERS:

11 SARAH COOKSEY, Delaware, MARCO

12 MARTY ROSEN, New Jersey, MARCO

13 JOSE ATANGAN, Joint Chiefs of Staff

14 GREG CAPOBIANCO, New York, MARCO

15 JOHN WALTERS, U.S. Coast Guard

16 PEDRO RAMOS, Acting State Conservationists, USDA

17 ANDY ZEMBA, Pennsylvania

18 L. FRANK MACH, U.S. Department of Transportation

19 Maritime Administration

20 DOUGLAS PABST, E.P.A.

21 TOM BIGFORD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration

22 LAURA McKAY, Virginia, MARCO

23

24

25 NOTE TAKER: INGRID IRIGOYEN, Meridian Institute

3

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2 PANEL MEMBERS:

3 KAREN CHYTALO, Assistant Bureau Chief Maritime Resources, New York State

4 Department of Environmental Conservation

5 DAVID NOBLE, Department of the Navy

6

7PUBLIC SPEAKERS: PAGES

8 --------------- -----

9 MARGO PELLIGRINO 74 171

10 MORGAN GOPNIK 77

11 MATT GOVE 79

12 170

13 CINDY ZIPF 87 177

14 ALI CHASE 80

15 166

16 ERIC JOHANSON 82 188

17 WILLIAM BROADLEY 85

18 BRENT GREENFEIELD 91

19 173

20 JACK FULLER 93

21 RON RAPP 183

22 BARBARA HUDSON 185

23 SARAH CHASE 186

24

25

4

1 MS. CANTRAL: Good morning,

2 everyone. Thank you for joining us

3 today. Two fun-filled, action packed

4 days with the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Planning

5 Body. Day two of its inaugural public

6 meeting.

7 I am not going to belabor what took

8 place yesterday, but just to share a

9 couple highlights and talk about how we

10 plan to spend our day today. Yesterday

11 we talked about the work that's been

12 underway over the course of the summer

13 since the formal establishment of the RPB

14 in April and also looked at a five-year

15 time line to break down the work and

16 identify some milestones. We will come

17 back to that time line later today and

18 see what discussions have happened since

19 first presenting yesterday. We also

20 talked about draft, initial draft goals

21 for the regional planning process and had

22 some good discussion about the way to

23 shake those goals.

24 Some further ideas and reflections

25 and framing about those goals including

5

1 the creation of a very broad vision, a

2 vision for the future of the Mid-Atlantic

3 region and we committed to you to put

4 some ideas together and bring them back

5 for some additional discussion today.

6 That's one of the things that we'll be

7 doing that afternoon.

8 We also had a good discussion about

9 engaging stakeholders' mechanisms, both

10 formal and informal in reach out and

11 outreach two-way communications for

12 engaging stakeholders, and we'll also

13 revisit that discussion very briefly this

14 morning before moving on to other things

15 that are topics for discussion today

16 which include use of the MARCO,

17 Mid-Atlantic data portal to support data

18 and information needs for the ocean

19 planning process and what next steps may

20 be needed to either operationalize that

21 idea or what the alternatives are.

22 And then we also want to talk about

23 some operational matters including the

24 draft charter, which is a document in

25 your materials that hopefully you've all

6

1 reviewed and are prepared to discuss

2 whatever key details need to be

3 accommodated and what the next steps are

4 for finalizing the charter. That's what

5 I have in mind we need to do today.

6 Is there anything else that the

7 co-leads can think of?

8 MS. SCHULTZ: I wanted to say good

9 morning to the Mid-Atlantic Regional

10 Planning body and stakeholders in the

11 audience. We did have a very productive

12 day yesterday in part because of the

13 members and very thoughtful input we've

14 received from our speakers and guest

15 speakers.

16 I also want to say we had a good

17 day yesterday because of a very skillful

18 facilitation that Laura provided to us.

19 She is with Meridian. She has a strong

20 team here that has allowed us to move

21 along smoothly and the co-lead, took a

22 lot of pressure off of me and Mo just to

23 be able to engage in the dialogue. So I

24 wanted to say thank you to the

25 facilitation and we'll have a very good

7

1 day to day.

2 MS. BORNHOLDT: I want to pile on

3 my appreciation for the Meridian team,

4 too, allows me to think about what Gwynne

5 said and we appreciate that.

6 I also want to thank the folks from

7 our stakeholders' work group, the

8 champions' work group, Sarah, Tom,

9 Darlene and others. It was a great

10 opportunity to show both bookends of the

11 types of engagement we can get involved

12 in and more formal business-type

13 engagement done in the public realm as

14 well as the little opportunities to sit

15 one-on-one and listen and like someone

16 said zip up your mouth and open your ears

17 and listen. Thank you.

18 MS. CANTRAL: Let's get going.

19 So, as any good facilitator should,

20 let me be clear about our agenda. I

21 reviewed the objectives and topics we'll

22 take up. I need to give you more of a

23 sense of the structure and the flow. If

24 you've got the agenda in front of you and

25 hopefully you all do, we'll be sticking

8

1 to it. We need to make time adjustments.

2 We are starting later so we'll start the

3 day with some additional reflections on

4 stakeholder engagement including some of

5 the highlights from the event last night

6 and then we'll shift from that into

7 discussion about data and information.

8 We'll have a presentation, Laura

9 McKay will start that discussion and

10 present some information for

11 consideration and then we'll pause and

12 have a public comment section like we did

13 yesterday. Our hope and intention is to

14 marry those public comment sessions with

15 the topic at hand, but that's not

16 necessarily the case. You can talk about

17 whatever you want to, speak to the RPB

18 about during these formal opportunities,

19 one of many that they have in mind for

20 how they engage you. We'll wrap up that

21 session and come back to the data and

22 information topic, close that out and

23 then take a lunch break. We'll then come

24 back and revisit the goals, discussion

25 and this is what we'll share with you.

9

1 Some of what we as the facilitation

2 team heard you all saying and what that

3 might suggest for taking the goals

4 development to the next stage of its

5 development, and then we'll move into

6 operational considerations, the charter

7 and any other matters we need to take up

8 before we adjourn.

9 I'm not giving you time. I need to

10 do the math and figure out how to adjust

11 for a 10 o'clock start. So bear with me

12 and we'll all keep track here.

13 So, if that's good with everyone,

14 then why don't we turn to Sarah and Tom.

15 I think two of you of you had highlights

16 you wanted to share from the event last

17 night.

18 MR. BIGFORD: I have notes I wanted

19 to share. My glasses broke and I can't

20 read them. The event last night went

21 really well. Thank you very much for

22 attending. We must have had close to 50

23 people there. The tables were full. We

24 had plenty of food, we were happy, people

25 didn't want to leave. We had the better

10

1 part of one hour and a half and that was

2 very good.

3 Our intention was to move beyond

4 the real starchy public comment period

5 and get into relationship building. We

6 made a good step forward. It's not the

7 end, that's for sure. A lot of you have

8 higher expectations and so do we. Sarah?

9 MS. COOKSEY: Ditto to everything

10 Tom said. Even though it was a lot of

11 time, it was time away from our friends

12 and family. I appreciate those of you

13 who could stay with us. So I'm going

14 to -- I was a note taker, bummer, I

15 didn't get to talk but I listened. So I

16 highlighted a couple things that seemed

17 to be a common theme.

18 There was some concern about

19 waiting until 2017 to have a plan. We

20 need to define exactly what we are doing.

21 We need some examples of some

22 accomplishments to show this is not new

23 zoning, not new regulations. We need to

24 disprove the feeders.

25 Then we talked -- sorry. Let me

11

1 rephrase by saying I was on the other

2 table so we could talk about anything and

3 we did. We spent a lot of time also

4 talking about the ecosystem part of this

5 and how planning is just one part of the

6 nine elements in the National Ocean

7 Policy. So we chatted a little bit

8 about -- what about all of the rest of

9 that stuff? So, it was informal. There

10 is not going to be attribution who said

11 what and other than just the start of

12 this conversation and the RPB listing

13 that's all last night was, but it was a

14 good start and I appreciate everyone.

15 If you note takers have not given

16 your notes to Kate, please do so. Thanks

17 again.

18 MS. CANTRAL: Anything else that

19 anyone wants to add about the event last

20 night? And as both Tom and Sarah said a

21 good start and a step in a direction many

22 of you were asking for.

23 So, perhaps a good segue is to come

24 back to a notion that you all discussed

25 yesterday regarding the stakeholder

12

1 liaison committee and being very focused

2 in putting the question for clarification

3 back to the group. You had some

4 discussion about it. There was

5 acknowledgment there this was an idea to

6 get things started. We need to get

7 started but I think my sense is that in

8 particular, MARCO, who has made the offer

9 to do the organizing of the liaison

10 committee needs a clear acknowledgment

11 that this is a direction you want to go

12 and that they should be proceeding.

13 Could we hear some feedback about

14 that?

15 MS. CHYTALO: I guess we should

16 direct MARCO to develop a plan for

17 implementing that type of a strategy of

18 the informal as well as the formal

19 development of that liaison group, but

20 also for them to put together a work plan

21 that would detail that or what activities

22 they are going to do, how often and that

23 kind of stuff and the financial

24 ramifications of that are so we know what

25 kind of -- what we are getting ourselves

13

1 into.

2 MS. SCHULTZ: I initially I was.

3 Yeah, I don't have a quick answer for

4 this one. Getting some input about what

5 would actually be in involved, the

6 individuals that we would be -- the

7 particular sectors that would be engaging

8 and I think each element you laid out are

9 things we definitely need to do revisit,

10 our own budget about what we have the

11 capacity to do, the staffing to do,

12 figure out if we do need additional

13 resources. Once I got past that

14 directing part of it everything else made

15 sense. (Laughter)

16 MS. CHYTALO: If we pay them to do

17 something well they are basically going

18 to be like a contractor. So that's all.

19 MS. SCHULTZ: I wouldn't necessarily

20 say at this stage the RPB will be paying

21 us for that. We have some limited

22 resources that we would be, you know,

23 kicking off some of this and if any of

24 the different federal agencies or any

25 other finding sources have money to

14

1 contribute towards that, naturally part

2 of that relationship we would, you know,

3 really clarify what it is that they would

4 begin the funding -- we would be getting

5 out of that funding.

6 I don't know if I've expressed that

7 well. If anyone else wants to zip in on

8 this one?

9 MS. BORNHOLDT: As a point of

10 clarification, we all want to

11 participate. It was a great start to

12 have the opportunity to have this

13 particular work group kind of do some

14 brainstorming and offer us some options.

15 Perhaps I'll take advantage of what Karen

16 said. What was truly intended we need to

17 have it scoped out a little bit so we

18 understand what some options are, the

19 resources to take and not necessarily for

20 MARCO to do, but find opportunities where

21 we can all join in maybe a proposal of

22 sorts so we have a understanding of the

23 obligations and resources and be able to

24 join in as a group allowable by law. We

25 want to make sure whatever process we

15

1 undertake for formal stakeholder process

2 that we all have that ability to

3 understand exactly what it is and see

4 where we can contribute.

5 MR. ATANGAN: We are trying to get

6 a way ahead with regard to the proposal

7 on the table. What I have not heard is

8 any objection to the -- I see this is the

9 only idea to put, I guess, meat on the

10 bones on them by suggesting would be that

11 we proceed at least with vetting go what

12 would be required. I think Mo has a

13 alluded to this. We need more details,

14 what is required associated with this

15 stakeholder liaison position. I think

16 the concept is generally accepted. I

17 mean I don't want to speak for everybody

18 but my sense is generally accepted by the

19 RPB what we need now is this okay. We

20 like the concept, let's get down to the

21 details, what the resources are going to

22 require, what are these folks going to be

23 doing and what are the RPB members going

24 to be called upon to do to support that

25 liaison position as well.

16

1 If you are looking for a consensus

2 and the charter says this is how we'll

3 operate, if you look for a consensus I

4 believe we have the consensus. This is a

5 way to proceed.

6 MS. CANTRAL: Go ahead.

7 MR. PABST: I agree and second the

8 motion.

9 MS. CANTRAL: So, I won't summarize

10 that except to say that it sounds like

11 there is a way to proceed and that the

12 RPB would be very appreciative of MARCO's

13 offer to further develop this stakeholder

14 liaison committee idea and bring back

15 some details about what some of the --

16 what some of those details would mean and

17 implications for capacity in all sense of

18 the work.

19 So is that do you feel comfortable

20 with that?

21 MR. ATANGAN: (Thumbs up)

22 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

23 So, another couple of just summary

24 statements and I invite any of you to

25 chime in on this.

17

1 Some reflection on the discussion

2 about stakeholder engagement yesterday.

3 In addition to further developing this, I

4 see as a potential mechanism there were a

5 number of other ideas, many of them

6 shared by people who have come yesterday

7 and also around the table including this

8 ombudsman idea, some other ways to engage

9 stakeholders that the RPB is going to be

10 taking away as a next step to further

11 explore and develop and figure out the

12 viability of those ideas and see if it

13 can continue to build its portfolio, if

14 you will, of different kinds of

15 engagement opportunities.

16 One of those opportunities is the

17 potential for recreating a FACA committee

18 which the RPB heard both during the

19 formal session and informal session last

20 night that there is an interest in doing.

21 There are implications for doing that.

22 There are trade office, there are

23 obstacles that have to be overcome

24 because it takes time and money to set

25 those up. But the mechanism, you know,

18

1 they heard the idea and want to explore

2 it the take away for you all is that they

3 are exploring that idea and seeing what

4 is appropriate and they can accommodate

5 in that regard.

6 In the meantime, putting in place

7 the mechanisms that can be in place to

8 get started right now so there can be

9 engagement happening, you know, starting

10 at this meeting, starting before this

11 meeting and continuing to ramp up is

12 something that is a desire around the

13 table.

14 So, if anyone wants to add to that,

15 I invite you and that's my summary of the

16 discussion and the current posture of

17 where you all -- they -- we should head

18 with the engagement.

19 MR. MACH: Well said.

20 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. I think

21 we are probably ready to move onto our

22 next topic and talk about data

23 information and the MARCO ocean data

24 portal.

25 Laura, I hand off to you at this

19

1 point.

2 MS. McKAY: Sure. Thank you.

3 Laura McKay. Good morning,

4 everyone. We are going to quick run

5 through our MARCO ocean data port and

6 hopefully you've all been going out to

7 the hall and seeing it and playing with

8 it and hitting all of the different

9 buttons. It is a remarkable tool and I

10 want to thank especially Jay O'Dell and

11 the Monmouth team for doing so much work

12 for MARCO on creating that portal. It's

13 been a long journey already. We started

14 this back in 2009 we were able to. Some

15 of our Virginia funds to get started,

16 through a grant to Jay and we're

17 fortunate to have regional partner funds

18 to kick into keep us going.

19 The portal is basically divided

20 into these 33 sections on the screen.

21 You can learn, explore, tells you the

22 range of planning needs. Those fact

23 sheets issue by issue and explore.

24 Let's -- you see the current data and

25 information, data priority and needs and

20

1 visualize, takes you to actually

2 launching the marine planner. We have a

3 new section up there and directing it

4 back to MARCO, so just want to point out

5 some of those features.

6 So we've been talking about

7 stakeholder engagement and I believe in

8 the context, really, of general planning,

9 but there is another kind of stakeholder

10 engagement going on which is really

11 looking at the data and actually

12 collecting data and vetting data. We've

13 been doing that since we started portal

14 development as well.

15 Some of the things we've done

16 recently are these participatory work

17 mapping workshops where we pull people

18 into a room and actually have them tell

19 us recreational uses, the important areas

20 and all five states are working on this

21 and we are collecting 22 different

22 recreational uses. We have meetings with

23 the ports, major ports in the

24 Mid-Atlantic and we are actually starting

25 a second round of meetings with some of

21

1 them in some locations and again, showing

2 them the data, asking them what's right,

3 what's wrong, what more do we need in

4 order to continue on with planning. And

5 then we are going to be meeting with

6 commissioners and there will be a lot

7 going on this winter when its hopefully

8 off season with them hopefully trying to

9 meet with stakeholders is important.

10 We'll look at the data we have from NOAA,

11 vessel trip reports and vessel monitoring

12 system data. We know that's not

13 everything. Tell us what else is

14 important to you and where else things

15 are important and help us get everything

16 right in the portal.

17 We've had some webinars for the

18 environmental, NGOs and wind industry

19 walking them through the portal. Does

20 the data look right? What other data

21 should we have in there?

22 Just getting started I wanted to

23 remind you that's another aspect of

24 stakeholder engagement we are all working

25 on. Some of the more recent data

22

1 developments, I hope I'm not repeating

2 myself, I talk about the portal and tell

3 everyone the same things, but since the

4 stakeholder workshop and April webinar,

5 one of the things which we are working on

6 is the ship traffic data, whatever

7 information.

8 MR. WALTERS: Automated

9 identification system.

10 MS. McKAY: Thanks, John. One of

11 the things the ports told us early on was

12 well, that's great, but it lumps

13 everything together and not terribly

14 useful. We need to see that data

15 segregated by vessel type. And so the

16 portal team went off and worked on that

17 and that's available now.

18 So, some of the other highlights I

19 mentioned, the recognition use, data

20 workshops, they are done everywhere

21 except New Jersey which is coming up in

22 November.

23 Marty, do you want to say the

24 dates?

25 MR. ROSEN: There is a flier --

23

1 there is a flier outside on the table.

2 Mid November, I think it's the 18th, 20th

3 and 21st? Kip, do you have the dates

4 handy?

5 MS. McKAY: Check the flier on the

6 table. If you are a recreational user in

7 New Jersey be sure to go to those

8 workshops. We had a blast doing them in

9 Virginia, we did them last summer. I had

10 a compendium of our maps on the table. I

11 didn't make a lot of copies, but we are

12 waiting until all states are done with

13 their maps so we can stitch them to go --

14 to make sure they make sense across the

15 boundaries. But in the meantime, those

16 that are done you can see Virginia's on

17 our state data coast and you can see

18 that.

19 There are two other surveys. We've

20 been working with Matt Gove, Surf Riding,

21 and they'll get to make data for us and a

22 boater survey that had been done in New

23 England that we've repeated in the

24 Mid-Atlantic and we'll have that data.

25 We'll have some great information on

24

1 recreation rational use which we never

2 had before. So that's a pretty big deal

3 to help with wind siting and shipping

4 lane siting and all towards ocean

5 planning issues talked about already

6 about the commercial economic data.

7 Those workshops are coming this fall and

8 keep an eye out for those.

9 Another thing the portal team has

10 been working on recently is the sand

11 data. Offshore discharge sites are on

12 there and the sand resource data is being

13 worked on as well. I'm getting some

14 information from BOEM.

15 Another thing that came up at the

16 April stakeholders' workshop, I don't

17 know if the telecommunications fellow is

18 here, it was noted the data we had in

19 April was pretty old and inaccurate.

20 That actually caused our portal team to

21 start talking with people at the federal

22 level and the multi-purpose marine folks

23 at NOAA are taking that up. It didn't

24 make sense to clean it up just for the

25 Mid-Atlantic, it needs to be done

25

1 nationally. So, it's's going to get

2 cleaned up and then we'll be able to pull

3 that into that MARCO ocean data portal as

4 well which should be great.

5 Another piece of data, another part

6 of the parts and shipping is that again,

7 if you can go out and take a look at the

8 portal on the right you see all of this

9 great information now about each port

10 color coded by commodities coming in

11 which is pretty fascinating. So, a lot

12 of richness of data there. Whether it's

13 coal, chemicals or food and farm products

14 that's all identified when you zoom into

15 each of the ports.

16 Also, all of the routing measures

17 in there, the precautionary separation

18 zones shipping safety, fairways, offshore

19 drilling, dredge disposal as been added

20 and cargo vessel density. I believe it's

21 in terms of kilometers of tracks down in

22 here.

23 So, we talked about data layers,

24 also tools and functions that are on

25 there. This is the big shark that's

26

1 eating the Mid-Atlantic. Jay had some

2 fun with us and actually drew that so you

3 can go into the portal and draw whatever

4 shape you want, probably not a big shark

5 or dolphin or fish or whatever, but

6 perhaps your ideas and you may get

7 together with others in your stakeholder

8 group, whether you are, you know, with

9 the wind industry or NGO looking at

10 sensitive habitats. You could go in and

11 draw some areas that are important for

12 you for whatever reason and you can share

13 that within your group. So, the ability

14 to customize your own maps and share them

15 is one of the functions that's been

16 really quite remarkable and the

17 technology. We, a lot of -- there is a

18 lot of concerning about how are we go to

19 keep this portal going and maintaining

20 it. We are so fortunate to have the

21 funding from NOAA that's going to the

22 portal team.

23 So what's coming up next,

24 basically, we have the money for another

25 two years, I guess, through 2014, '15,

27

1 '16. Thanks Tony. We are going to

2 continue improving the data and work on

3 the commercial data and data work on

4 analysis features and recognize --

5 Gearhardt is here with us today. The

6 portal is working with MARCO which is at

7 the emergent MARCO coastal -- look on

8 sheet. They collect a lot of realtime

9 data which, hopefully, will be converted

10 and translated into long-range planning

11 type of layers perhaps through some

12 extrapolation.

13 The data on here now may reflect

14 annual averages of whether it's shipping

15 density or wind speed. We would like to

16 get some more refinement and see if we

17 can get seasonal information up there too

18 and more layers going up and further

19 complicates the portal, but we have a

20 Cracker Jack team making this user

21 friendly and I trust they being audit all

22 that complexity and make this an

23 easy-to-use, easy-to-navigate type of

24 system.

25 Also, the portal team will continue

28

1 to provide assistance to all

2 stakeholders, the MARCO managers to the

3 RPB. And another big piece of this

4 grant -- I should not say too big,

5 actually small amount of money, but there

6 is some funding in there to start working

7 on regional OSHA assessments and support

8 the MARCO and RPB efforts. And I'm going

9 to go next now to the regional ocean

10 assessment and talk a little more about

11 that.

12 There is national guidance out

13 there and a lot of you recall what was in

14 the original inter-agency ocean policy

15 task force guidance, it was extensive and

16 descriptive. The planning and basically,

17 it talked about doing an analysis of

18 ecological conditions and cumulative

19 risks, forecast model of cumulative

20 impacts. A lot of wonderful stuff but

21 very expensive to document, all that to

22 do that kind of assessment.

23 So then when the marine special

24 planning handbook came out this August,

25 the description in there was quite a bit

29

1 simpler and basically the guidance was

2 that a regional -- marine plan should

3 include a marine assessment that it uses

4 to describe the activities relevant to

5 the subject matter of the plan.

6 So, that gives us quite a lot of

7 flexibility as a region to seaside,

8 really, what we want in that. But

9 obviously we want to look at geophysical

10 biological human uses, history, culture

11 and do the best job we can with it.

12 The reality strikes and it's only

13 $75,000. It's a very tiny amount of

14 money and so I think, again, expectations

15 need to be realistic here. So to me what

16 that says is we really need the ocean

17 assessment to focus on the priorities in

18 our plan what we agreed to as the main

19 gold goals and priorities of that plan is

20 where we are going to have to focus our

21 attention on the assessment.

22 So, basically, the Monmouth team

23 will be putting out a request for

24 proposals. This money will be sub

25 contracted and what I hope we can get to

30

1 today will be some discussion about what

2 the RPB would really like to say and see

3 in that social assessment and hopefully

4 we can give some helpful guidance to Tony

5 and the Monmouth team as to how to focus

6 that RPB. That's going to be an RFP.

7 That's a difficult task. I will leave it

8 at that and pose these basic questions

9 for the RPB and the major one is how does

10 the RPB wish to use the MARCO portal and

11 to what extent do we want to rely on the

12 MARCO portal as its planning tool and

13 what additional data and tools would the

14 RPB like added to it? And then what

15 would the RPB like to see covered in a

16 regional ocean assessment.

17 I'll throw that out there as our

18 discussion points for this morning.

19 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you, Laura

20 McKay.

21 To underscore a point that Laura

22 made that hasn't come up with your

23 discussion so far, we had not gotten to

24 the topic is the fact that this, the data

25 portal and everything she described in

31

1 terms of reaching out to sectors and to

2 communities is another dimension of

3 stakeholder engagement and an excellent

4 opportunity and there are opportunities

5 for leveraging some of that outreach.

6 There is probably an opportunity to

7 leverage and outreach across regions.

8 The northeast is also conducting similar

9 kind of building a data portal and

10 building it out. So I think something

11 flagged as you are strategizing to be

12 more efficient with your stakeholder

13 engagement you factor that in as an

14 opportunity.

15 Let's take up the questions in

16 order and first have some discussion

17 around the first question that's been

18 posed here about the RPBs hope to use a

19 MARCO portal.

20 MR. PABST: I think in a simplest

21 form use it to achieve our goals as we

22 would have to make decisions and

23 objectives and actions so it should have

24 the infrastructure needed to support what

25 we are trying to achieve.

32

1 MS. CHYTALO: What has been done so

2 far is fantastic. What you put into the

3 data portal, that's really a remarkable

4 piece of information. One thing I missed

5 is resource information in there in a

6 data portal.

7 MS. McKAY: I didn't go through all

8 seven of the themes, but --

9 MS. CHYTALO: I was getting

10 nervous.

11 MS. McKAY: I didn't want to repeat

12 what I've done several times in the past.

13 There is definitely security, there is

14 maritime life, maritime industry. There

15 is marine life which covers all of the

16 biological. There is administrative that

17 covers all of the jurisdictional

18 boundaries.

19 What else am I forgetting, Jay?

20 Gwynne?

21 MS. CHYTALO: Do you have the old

22 disposal sites too?

23 MS. McKAY: Military free

24 restricted areas and it's quite

25 extensive.

33

1 MS. CHYTALO: I want to make sure

2 we have all of the pieces and other

3 pieces we should be developing or help to

4 develop and something we can assist on to

5 help MARCO more so too. That would be a

6 positive thing as a partnership and stuff

7 that would be good.

8 MS. McKAY: If I go back a few

9 slides on that intro you can -- maybe

10 not.

11 I guess we don't have the slide in

12 here that has the list of the themes on

13 the right, but yeah, all of the more

14 reason to go out into the hall and look

15 at the portal. You all need, as RPB

16 members you need to be looking at it and

17 become familiar with what's in there

18 around hopefully our stakeholders are

19 doing that as well.

20 MS. CHYTALO: One other thing we

21 talked about last night at our table, the

22 things in the three dimensions, organisms

23 don't stay on the ground. They surface

24 throughout the water column.

25 Is that worth looking at on a three

34

1 dimensional scale?

2 MS. McKAY: To the extent we can,

3 that may be an area where some of the

4 MARCO data can be helpful, looking at the

5 air space above the water as well. So

6 definitely there is a three dimensional

7 space.

8 MS. CHYTALO: I wanted to make sure

9 for resources we do accommodate them and

10 certain activities can certainly take

11 place down below or whatever, but in --

12 activities occur on the surface, but not

13 at the bottom and we need to know what's

14 going on in both of those types of

15 spaces.

16 MS. McKAY: Right.

17 MS. CHYTALO: Excellent.

18 MS. CANTRAL: John?

19 MR. WALTERS: As a potential user

20 and active user we are using this tool in

21 our further efforts to examine marine

22 traffic on the east coast and we've been

23 partnering with MARCO and the MARCO

24 development team on importing and making

25 A.I.S. data and how we are using that is

35

1 determining how or if traffic routing

2 should be modified and that's in

3 consideration with the efforts of

4 developing wind energy off shore, but

5 beyond that renewable energy because

6 other things are probably coming besides

7 wind. So we are looking 20 to 30 years

8 down the road and hoping to use this

9 information to help us make some of those

10 decisions about what we are doing.

11 This is very critical information.

12 The one piece, I spoke with your team,

13 was including ocean currents. Ocean

14 currents dictate -- has a great impact

15 where shipping goes. If a ship can

16 capitalize on the current and reduce the

17 fuel he consumes, he -- if he doesn't

18 want to capitalize on that, he'll sail to

19 shore. But having that information

20 available will help us to make decisions

21 about traffic decisions now and 20 to 30

22 years down the road. We can be confident

23 in the near term, but 20, 30 years down

24 the road ocean currents may not change

25 much unless the polar ice caps melts it.

36

1 But is it being capitalized on and where

2 do those currents relate to potential

3 energy area not only existing or proposed

4 wind areas, but Phase II.

5 What's down the road for potential

6 wind energy, is it more systems? If so,

7 where is currents and where is shipping

8 going to be and we can approach the next

9 phase in a measured approach, find out,

10 understand where shipping marine animals

11 are going and look at those parameters or

12 constraining parameters and look at where

13 it's least offensive or conflicting to

14 place the next phase.

15 This is very critical to Coast

16 Guard use, very important. You see the

17 traffic density coming out of Hamilton

18 Roads out of New York in the previous

19 slide. There is a slide there that had

20 the Virginia wind energy which had the

21 trafficking go right through it.

22 Can you going back to that one

23 Laura?

24 MR. WALTERS: Where Laura had other

25 pointer is a designated wind energy that

37

1 was auctioned off to Dominion Power. You

2 see the tracks going through the wind

3 area part of -- how do we reroute that

4 traffic? Where is it going? Where is

5 the -- would the water accommodate that

6 traffic? What is the potential for

7 expanded Panama Canal coming to Hamilton

8 Roads and where is the deep water for the

9 traffic to get this to the part? How

10 does that affect the danger zones or

11 military operations conducted by the Navy

12 or Air Force? And folks don't realize

13 the Air Force is really active offshore

14 in its air-to-air combat operations. Not

15 training -- training, not operations

16 training.

17 So there is a more of a military

18 impact than you would think in this area.

19 There is more than just a Navy. The

20 Marines are out there actively and

21 surprisingly, so is the Army.

22 So there is a lot of activity out

23 here, a lot of potential conflicts with

24 commercial fishing and recreation. It's

25 a very busy area.

38

1 MS. CANTRAL: If you needed an

2 example of the utility of a tool like

3 this and John is giving you a great

4 understanding of how this information can

5 be important for decision-making about

6 how to avoid or minimize potential

7 conflicts --

8 MR. ROSEN: That was my comment. I

9 think up to now understandably discussion

10 in process and somewhat abstract. I

11 think it's prior time to take some of the

12 information from the portal and start

13 developing some case studies and

14 illustrations from Jones' Point. It

15 involves the (inaudible) to kind of

16 ground this process and make it more

17 tangible. I don't think anybody wants to

18 hear about charters, and unless they want

19 to see how this benefits and take a look

20 at the portal and how this process can

21 be -- this is part of our message to the

22 stakeholders.

23 MS. BORNHOLDT: How about linkages?

24 One of the things you've mentioned that

25 is, of course, concerns how do you

39

1 continue the existence of this beyond the

2 maps you have now? I want to know with

3 data and linkages with our portals.

4 Something that John said reminded me one

5 of the dialogues we had at the Department

6 of Defense. It's not just the Navy and

7 Marines, Department of Defense does a

8 red, yellow, green for us. After it does

9 its in reach and we have those polygons

10 posted in the MC, do you have a

11 relationship to be able to upload that

12 data?

13 We take care and keep it living.

14 That link allows you to have that open

15 conduit without having to manage that

16 conduit. Do you have the NOAA data?

17 They have vacuum machines in addition to

18 currents, air issues, even though we all

19 know, at least in the case for wind

20 energy, is a clean generation. However,

21 when you go and construct these

22 facilities you talk about using a lot of

23 diesel and causes issues associated with

24 some air pollution, et cetera. If we had

25 that data available we may understand to

40

1 augment our decision-making what link

2 questions and what physical things do you

3 have?

4 MS. McKAY: We work closely with

5 Mary Boatman at your agency and she set

6 up the national ocean data which is

7 oksdata.gov (sic.) and all federal

8 agencies are beginning to feed their

9 layers to that system which makes it easy

10 for us in the meetings to download

11 directly whether we are not having to

12 maintain the data per se, we just go and

13 I think they are working on alerts so

14 that the regions are notified when new

15 data sets go update or data layers go up.

16 It can be fairly automated that regional

17 portals get this information easily and

18 quickly.

19 And then we have -- we are building

20 links as well to search the state

21 portals. I'm not sure if we have that in

22 there yet, but something we talked about

23 too and we've talked in previous meetings

24 about the idea of these portals and

25 databases being nested.

41

1 So, you have things at the federal

2 level, ocean.data.gov and multi-purpose

3 marine -- NOAA works on together and they

4 provide all of this federal agency data

5 layer and I know the G.I.S. coordinator

6 on my staff works with BOEM to also take

7 out how the data can flow in the other

8 direction. For instance, we are working

9 on getting our Virginia recreational use

10 maps uploaded to ocean.data.gov.

11 There is definitely linkages going

12 in all directions and good communications

13 are being established that's going to

14 make this all pretty nicely streamlined.

15 I think you have had an earlier

16 question.

17 MS. BORNHOLDT: Other types of

18 physical data.

19 MS. McKAY: In terms of air

20 quality?

21 MS. BORNHOLDT: Meteorology,

22 ocean -- physical --

23 MS. McKAY: That's what -- so we --

24 I wasn't clear. That's what I hope we

25 can integrate, that data, we can get from

42

1 MARCO's, the ocean data systems. That's

2 the kind of data they collect realtime.

3 The challenge is to take those mountains

4 of data and sort of, you know,

5 extrapolate or in into a layer that's

6 usable for long-term planning.

7 A lot of that realtime data is

8 critical for emergencies and that sort of

9 thing, but we don't really need to know

10 what the temperature is every minute.

11 You need to have it generalized for

12 planning purposes. That's something the

13 portal time is working on with MARCO.

14 With the continued funding for portal

15 development, that will be something we

16 want to work into that.

17 If I could just -- I have to

18 respond. Marty was talking about the

19 importance of having case studies and the

20 portal team was just meeting earlier this

21 week and they have been receiving some

22 training about stories and how to make

23 things real and how to put stories in

24 case study on to tools like the portal.

25 So I'm hoping that we'll be doing some

43

1 really cool work on that. Interviewing

2 real people, have real stakeholders talk

3 about why things are important or what

4 the problem is they are grappling with

5 and how the portal can help some of

6 problems.

7 I think that's an excellent

8 observation, Marty, and one that the

9 portal team is on top of and hopefully

10 funding continues and we'll be able to

11 have those kinds of features.

12 MS. CANTRAL: Several people

13 have -- I'm going to acknowledge Greg and

14 Frank and Joe.

15 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Thanks, Laura.

16 I'm wondering if you want share with the

17 RPB and audience, I know that the data

18 portal team is working on some user

19 agreement language and some data

20 standards and sort of figuring out that

21 data and I think that's great, you know,

22 for a lot of obvious reasons the user

23 agreement, to my way of thinking, letting

24 people know what's really on here and

25 what the data implies and doesn't employ

44

1 and it's important my understanding some

2 of the data on the portal is static data

3 and some is model data and may have a

4 user when they go into a complicated

5 repository of lots of data, understand

6 what's on there and a couple of other

7 things, but so the user agreement data

8 standards.

9 I was interested in your discussion

10 about state data and I know I talked a

11 little bit with Jay last night, but

12 trying to think through how the portal

13 can house the state data and what's the,

14 you know, best way to start that process?

15 I think it's complicated. There are

16 scale issues, data collection methodology

17 and there is no dangers of sort of

18 slapping stuff up without slipping it

19 through.

20 The last thing was coordination

21 with Emrock and edge matching and sharing

22 or complimenting each others' work, you

23 know. Great example is Emrock and

24 northeast data portal. The boater

25 surveys in New England and Long Island

45

1 Sound is sharing -- we'll do Long Island

2 Sound on New York with you by the way.

3 We'll do your ocean side too, which is a

4 fantastic offer and general thing to do.

5 I'm exploring what it is to reciprocate

6 that effort and coordinate better with on

7 a regional scale with more of these

8 folks.

9 MS. McKAY: There is coordination

10 and actually there were regular

11 conference calls between the northeast

12 and Atlantic portal teams and those are

13 still going on as needed, but there has

14 definitely been a lot of synergy there.

15 There's been a lot of sharing of ideas.

16 Our portal actually went up first and of

17 course of the northeast used a lot of the

18 same kind of look and feel. And then we

19 are getting things from them as well.

20 There is a connection. There is

21 communication. There is back and forth.

22 I think we are in good shape there.

23 It also has been great in terms of

24 having similar data needs and data gaps

25 and so having two regions, really one

46

1 voice saying what we really need is this

2 data layer X or Y and those requests go

3 to some of the federal agencies. BOEM

4 and DOE have been responsive to those

5 data requests and there is so much data

6 being collected right now, not in the

7 portal yet, it's still being collected.

8 So I think that collaboration is going to

9 bear fruit that you will see pretty soon.

10 It takes a while to collect that data,

11 but putting the portals up has called

12 into focus where those gaps are. So I

13 think that's all been good. Hopefully

14 I've answered that. Now let me remember

15 your other three.

16 User agreement. I want to point

17 out that the way MARCO is structured we

18 have an ocean planning action team that I

19 serve as an aid for and that has a

20 basically a portal team and we had

21 decided it into portal activities and

22 stakeholder engagement. We've merged it.

23 Now there is a data review team, outside

24 experts that are helping us now with both

25 the user agreement and setting data

47

1 standards. We have dropped documents

2 that they have come up with. They need

3 to keep looking at that and the MARCO

4 board will look at those documents again

5 and we have those data standard set and

6 those will be visible on its MARCO

7 portal. When they are agreed to, I won't

8 go into what all of those are, but

9 basically what we all want is credible

10 data. We want to be transparent and have

11 the best available.

12 We will have to recognize we don't

13 always have current data and we

14 probably -- never will have perfect data.

15 We'll always be in a position of wishing

16 we had more and better, but while we'll

17 have to, most ahead with best available.

18 That has to be clear when you go as a

19 user to the portal you need to understand

20 what you are looking at. You need to

21 understand very clearly and easily how

22 old is this data, how is it created, who

23 created it and then it will have to be

24 user-be-aware after that. But to my mind

25 that's the only way to move forward we

48

1 can't wait forever for perfect data.

2 Did I miss one of your questions,

3 Greg? I think I got three.

4 MR. CAPOBIANCO: You did awesome.

5 The conversations we were chatting about

6 state data.

7 MS. McKAY: Right. Uploading one

8 of the earlier versions of the MARCO

9 portal we had a theme or section state

10 specific. We had the New Jersey baseline

11 data. We had the Maryland shoals data.

12 That's something, you know, we had agreed

13 we would try to put up layers that

14 covered the entire region and that was

15 sort of the general idea. But again, in

16 the best available where we can, I think

17 the portal team is willing to look at

18 where we put upstate data or data that

19 may be available over one state or two

20 states.

21 To the extent that is important and

22 useful for regional planning, I think we

23 need to balance that about does it need

24 to be something in the regions to see it

25 should -- could be on our individual

49

1 state portals, but that's something we'll

2 look at further.

3 MS. CANTRAL: Before turning to

4 Frank I see a couple other tents have

5 gone up we'll go to Frank, Joe, Sarah,

6 John and Karen.

7 That would be the order.

8 MR. MACH: D.O.T. is not going to

9 be a big source for ocean information,

10 but the Maritime Administration, the main

11 highways programs and sometimes we call

12 Shore to Sea Shipping. There is a study

13 out now, the 195 Corridor Study. They

14 are trying to support D.O.T.'s congestion

15 goals pushing traffic off 95 and putting

16 it into the sea lanes. And John's got

17 issues with, you know, passage of those

18 vessels in areas that are impacted by

19 other users that might be -- an have an

20 effect of America's green highways,

21 alternatives we'll say.

22 MR. ATANGAN: Just a couple

23 comments. My hope is the standards you

24 are looking at are used in our base fund.

25 Certainly the industry standards, the

50

1 last thing we want to do is come up with

2 a separate MARCO standard because I think

3 that recruits problems down stream with

4 regard to sharing information and using

5 additional information. I'm a big

6 advocate of using whatever industry

7 standards are out there.

8 As for your data and what you are

9 going to use I like the portal. It's

10 come a long way since I first saw it I

11 think a couple years ago. Massive,

12 massive improvement. I think it's very

13 easy to use. I'm a pretty

14 technology-challenged guy and I was able

15 to go in there and do some pretty cool

16 stuff. I believe it has the potential to

17 assist us in our decision-making by

18 providing certainly the stakeholders the

19 common view. This -- it's almost -- it's

20 always easier if one, you are about to

21 make a decision. Everybody sees the

22 information you are making that decision

23 on -- in a common framework, common

24 visual. Everybody sees what it is from

25 the same light. But in order to do that

51

1 we need to make sure that it is in fact

2 and you've already said it, it is in fact

3 the best available scientific data.

4 Also, in providing this picture I think

5 you -- it will assist in the transparency

6 aspects of the RPB's decision-making

7 process downstream. I encourage the

8 portal development. I believe it can be

9 a very powerful tool. My only caveat is

10 stick to the industry standard.

11 MS. COOKSEY: I was going to try to

12 move us on and cull the question, but

13 there were more people that needed to

14 speak. The question I haven't heard, any

15 other options? So I think at that point

16 similar to yet with the stakeholders,

17 unless we come up with something better,

18 I recommend we accept MARCO's offer to

19 use the portal to support our activities

20 with some of these caveats that we just

21 heard that I think are very important.

22 However, I would like us to make a

23 fully-informed decision perhaps at our

24 next meeting which would -- it would be

25 wonderful to say what are our other

52

1 options and how much will they cost. But

2 I have not seen that today based upon the

3 information we have.

4 And then I went back and took a

5 look at what was in CMSP guide book a

6 minute ago and went back and looked at

7 the presentation. That again started us

8 off yesterday with our time line and not

9 only are we supposed to start the

10 regional assessment, which I think you

11 said we only have $75,000 to do, we are

12 also supposed to be doing a capacity

13 assessment.

14 This is food for thought for the

15 next -- I'm not smart enough to figure

16 out how to do this, but you think some of

17 the smart techno people in the audience

18 and our contractors and staff can also

19 help us weave a way for it to help with

20 the capacity assessment.

21 Those two things are tied together.

22 To be to be able to use the portal for a

23 as a tool it can be we need to do the

24 capacity assessment as well. I'm not

25 sure if that makes complete sense, but I

53

1 would like to ask the RPB to reflect on

2 that.

3 Not hearing any other offers, I

4 would recommend that for now that the

5 RPB, accept MARCO's offer of using the

6 portal.

7 MS. CANTRAL: Sarah, thank you and

8 I was going to focus the group on the

9 same question, having heard a couple

10 supportive comments I think are

11 underscoring what you just said.

12 Since there are few other people

13 putting their tents up or just put their

14 tents up, I recommend we hear this last

15 round of comments, come back to that

16 question and then move to the other

17 issue, the other topic which is the

18 questions that were up and you just

19 referred to regarding assessments.

20 So, if that sounds okay to the

21 group the next person in the line, was

22 John Karen Mo and let me -- John?

23 MR. WALTERS: We had a discussion

24 the other day about the focus of the

25 portal, whether it's a 30,000-foot view

54

1 of things or can it be focused down so

2 maybe it's 500-foot elevation. This is

3 also one of the decision points. This is

4 a static or appears to be a static

5 presentation of history rather than a mix

6 of day-to-day operations and planning.

7 I was thinking of the user,

8 commercial user fishermen, commercial or

9 recreational can go to the tool and if he

10 wanted to, find out or his route

11 planning, what were the weather

12 conditions offshore, whether -- what are

13 the currents NOAA weather buoys saying,

14 can it be accessed to or linked to the

15 ports sensors. So that this is a totally

16 usable route planning tool as well as a

17 strategic planning tool. So maybe

18 address whether it, can it be expanded or

19 should be expanded to the day-to-day

20 operational considerations or only retain

21 it as a strategic high-level ocean

22 planning tool.

23 MS. CANTRAL: Okay.

24 MS. McKAY: I'm not sure I can

25 totally access it, but I think that as

55

1 our two different things I don't think we

2 designed the portal to be someone's route

3 planning portal. I think we designed it

4 to be multi-stakeholder ocean planning

5 portal.

6 Whether you can add all of that

7 depth and bells and whistles for specific

8 other uses that are daily uses for

9 operations as opposed to planning, I

10 don't know if the technology would be

11 there. But if we could, yeah, that would

12 be the dream, but I'm not sure that

13 that's anything we can do real soon.

14 MS. CANTRAL: You want to jump in?

15 MR. ATANGAN: I want to respond as

16 someone who has experience in these

17 operational daily-type use things. That

18 is a tremendous undertaking that I would

19 certainly advice against at this point.

20 The resources required to do that are

21 pretty significant. Daily manpower,

22 somebody to keep an eye on the

23 information, make sure it's updating I

24 don't think that's something we should

25 commit to based on the limited resources

56

1 we have. Let's focus on the things we do

2 well and the things we immediately need

3 for the purpose we are setting out to.

4 MS. CANTRAL: Karen?

5 MS. CHYTALO: I guess my question

6 is who makes the decision on what data

7 sets get added personally through the

8 data portal. How are those decisions

9 made?

10 MS. McKAY: At the moment it's

11 through the MARCO board, MARCO management

12 board.

13 MS. CHYTALO: Who decides what data

14 sets would be added on? So, therefore if

15 we were to enter into an agreement with

16 MARCO to use that for the RPB, that might

17 have to be modified I assume or for the

18 decision process to have data sent to

19 what types of data would be added on.

20 MS. McKAY: That would be a

21 negotiation between MARCO management

22 board an RPB.

23 MS. CHYTALO: That's something we

24 need to keep in mind for adding pieces on

25 if its -- right now the MARCO, you've

57

1 been doing a fantastic job putting

2 something together for your purposes, but

3 for the regional planning body might be a

4 little bit different. Our goals might be

5 different. I don't know at that point,

6 therefore we might have to tweak some

7 things in terms of a decision-making

8 process in getting those processes on

9 there.

10 MS. BORNHOLDT: I have a second

11 question. Do you think the data

12 standards will be ready and posted?

13 MS. CHYTALO: Well, we have a draft

14 right now and the draft has been shared

15 with the MARCO management board. I

16 think, you know, I would like to defer to

17 Jay and Tony about timing. I know Jay,

18 you probably want to meet with your

19 external scientific expert team again.

20 Is that all right to let Jay say

21 something?

22 JAY: So, as Laura mentioned, we

23 first -- a little quick clarification.

24 There are internationally and federally

25 recognized standards, technical standards

58

1 that address data information about data

2 and interoperability so that we can

3 continue to do things we are doing now.

4 We are consuming data directly from

5 federal agencies from the MMC -- Multi

6 Purpose Marine and a couple other sites.

7 So we had a pretty good handle on, you

8 know, being up to snuff on those

9 particular technical standards.

10 The other question is the standards

11 that Laura mentioned about that related

12 to understanding the pedigree of the

13 data, its credibility is it the -- the

14 questions and sequentially is it the best

15 available data?

16 For -- to address the second set

17 and you know, its around by who decides

18 port and who decides what goes onto the

19 portal. We have established a review --

20 folks who are external to our team and

21 recognize scientists in the region we

22 only met ones and feeling our way on this

23 we developed a draft list of criteria we

24 have sent --

25 MS. McKAY: Yes.

59

1 JAY: -- to the MARCO management

2 board.

3 We did actually do a fair bit of

4 due diligence and looked at what our

5 portals around the country, both regions

6 that will -- portals like ours and

7 federal sites had done and not wanting to

8 reinvent the wheel. If we are all ears,

9 if someone has a list of standards we

10 they are using, we are treading into new

11 territory and want to get it right. With

12 your help we are certainly not starting

13 from scratch. We are collaborating

14 closely with northeast teams. Stephanie

15 and Nick are here today.

16 I just want to add too that in the

17 process of developing and bringing all of

18 the data into the portal we are working

19 with, closely with your staff and

20 agencies represented at the table. I do

21 see a lot of -- while there is a

22 technical distinction or important

23 distinction between, you know, the portal

24 team working directly with the MARCO

25 board and some kind of expanded or

60

1 different arrangement, that served the

2 needs of the RPB as well, but I don't

3 think it should be that hard because we

4 are all working together already.

5 MS. BORNHOLDT: I had another

6 question and I'm a -- with regard to the

7 this kind of discussion and particular

8 topic -- gross understanding, are there

9 gross standards for data? What is the

10 Delta between that and what MARCO is?

11 The technical standard -- so the other

12 piece is I guess what Laura and Karen was

13 talking about, the data meets that

14 technical standard and it's perhaps more

15 a policy call with regard to the purpose

16 of the MARCO portal and how this data

17 needs -- meets those needs as well as

18 questions that at that point this time

19 MARCO has. They want to use the data to

20 answer.

21 JAY: Yes. That's correct.

22 MS. CANTRAL: Okay.

23 JAY: My colleague -- we want to

24 support ocean planning. That's the niche

25 we set out to follow with direction from

61

1 MARCO and our NOAA founders.

2 MS. CANTRAL: So, what I suggest, I

3 would like to come back to Sarah's

4 question, see if we can wrap this up for

5 now recognizing all of these topics and

6 questions are a work in progress and move

7 on to the second question regarding

8 regional assessment and you know, what

9 I'm hearing from the discussion is some

10 expressions of positive like the portal

11 thing that it can assess the RPB with

12 their work. There are some caveats,

13 still some outstanding questions and

14 needs clarification about the state data

15 standard and being transparent about

16 where it come from and now some good

17 clarifications about that. There may be

18 a need for some future discussions as the

19 RPB gets clear about what its goals are

20 and how that aligns with what MARCO is --

21 has been developing this portal for in

22 terms of its goals and some discussion

23 between its two entities may be called

24 for -- to insure that the mark -- data

25 portal has the infrastructure it needs to

62

1 support the work of the RPB and if it

2 doesn't, then what are the alternatives.

3 So, seeing the weather alternative

4 for now, it seems logical you would

5 embrace this idea and then see how it

6 evolves.

7 Okay? Have we got that? Feel

8 comfortable with that?

9 MR. WALTERS: Yes.

10 MS. CANTRAL: So, then, let's have

11 some discussion. I would like to say in

12 ten minutes we are going to make take a

13 break and move to our public comment.

14 Second option, whether you have fully

15 dispensed with this question or not we'll

16 take our public comment and maybe come

17 back to the topic and see if there is

18 anything else we need to do.

19 What would you like to see covered

20 in a regional ocean assessment?

21 MR. ROSEN: If one of the purposes

22 of this process is to identify,

23 anticipate potential resource use,

24 conflicts and help make -- resolve it

25 then (inaudible), not a lot of money at

63

1 all to include projections and try to

2 state allied ones if possible so we have

3 some idea what the future might bring.

4 MS. SCHULTZ: Step one is to

5 document what it is we currently do have.

6 There is a wealth of information on the

7 portal and information in other places.

8 What do we have and kind of think through

9 strategically what we are trying to

10 answer. Are we trying to get an index of

11 the help? What are those questions? And

12 I think we have to have a little bit of a

13 structure, mechanism to engage the group

14 in those after we know what data we do

15 have.

16 MR. PABST: Thanks. I was going to

17 say something similar to what Gwynne said.

18 Once we decide firmly on goals, actions,

19 we can, right now, the task of getting

20 everything we have critical and assessing

21 what we need in order to be able do what

22 it is we say we want to do.

23 MS. COOKSEY: I also would like to

24 add that I hope we keep in mind what is

25 unique about our region and part of that

64

1 is the people and the businesses and

2 transportation networks and things

3 already here and some of that will be

4 land based, but I do think that's

5 important because the people impact the

6 ocean. I know my governor is very

7 interested in the economics of this and I

8 hope we have the resources to do an

9 economic study as well.

10 MS. McKAY: One thing Jay and I

11 wore talking about the other day as far

12 as the -- what we currently have the

13 resources and the human uses, that is

14 largely in the portal. Not saying

15 everything is in there, but wondering

16 about whether you all are expecting an

17 assessment. That's a stand-alone merited

18 document which could be done or if we

19 somehow want to integrate the assessment

20 into the portal itself, or maybe we do

21 both. But it strikes me, you know, a

22 picture tells a thousand words. Using

23 the portal and pictures and maps you can

24 create. Might be a nice way to actually

25 structure the assessment and there can

65

1 be -- could be perhaps an elaboration of

2 each layer's fact sheet which describes

3 the layer. Perhaps it can be expanded to

4 include more about the condition of the

5 resource or use and the expected future

6 uses or whatever that there may be some

7 nice ways to sort of integrate it into

8 the portal.

9 The other thing was in the

10 Monmouth's team's proposal as an option

11 to investigate whether or not we want to

12 use the -- I think it's the Global Ocean

13 Health Index. I don't know if you've all

14 seen that on line, but you can global

15 Ocean Health Index. That lays out a

16 number of parameters that perhaps could

17 be adapted to the Mid-Atlantic region and

18 a way of marking the current conditions

19 of the condition of the current's

20 resources. It sounds similar to say what

21 is the condition of the fishery,

22 extremely difficult and we don't know we

23 have all of the science and may never

24 will to say what the condition of

25 everything is. The key will be how do we

66

1 do this in a $75,000 grant that's going

2 to be useful.

3 MS. COOKSEY: Yes. Let's put --

4 I -- let's strive for the perfect word

5 beyond the portal and have some sort of

6 document as well on the portal have fact

7 sheets where we can go further. If you

8 author those that wouldn't that drill

9 down and get further information.

10 MS. BORNHOLDT: Point to consider:

11 Perhaps I know the Shinnecock Nation is

12 not hear today, but we hear a lot of

13 information that NOAA collects collection

14 and BOEM collects and how each individual

15 state collection, depending upon the use

16 and objectives, et cetera, our using RPB

17 and how was use the MARCO portal and

18 design resource assessment, again,

19 dependent upon our objectives one of the

20 things we need to integrate is this

21 changing world in doing things in a

22 different way is tradition. This is

23 knowledge. This is not unique to first

24 patients. That's what's cool about the

25 participatory -- we can not forget that

67

1 we have a first nation that is one of the

2 youngest thoroughly recognized tribes and

3 here is a opportunity to perhaps mine

4 that data, set that tradition and really

5 weave that into whatever the portal is

6 for use of the five states. However, we

7 use it in concert with some of the

8 objectives and let's not forget that

9 element.

10 MS. CANTRAL: Marty?

11 MR. ROSEN: Laura, to your point

12 about trying to develop assessment about

13 characterizing current conditions. For

14 instance, I assume that proposal RPB will

15 not necessarily be trying to generate the

16 new information. It will draw from the

17 existing specific information to develop

18 a portal. So I assume that same a

19 testament of information or -- a lot of

20 agencies do that as a matter of force.

21 So that information will be -- may be

22 considered. We are not talking about all

23 of the new data obviously.

24 MS. McKAY: That ties well with the

25 point that Sarah made. If we use the

68

1 portal to try to kind of show where all

2 this information exists to make it easy

3 for people to kind find it we can make a

4 summary statement on the fact sheets and

5 have hyperlinks right to the current

6 reports, whatever resource condition or

7 report is out there. That would be

8 pretty doable.

9 Do you agree, Tony?

10 MR. McDONALD: All of our

11 stakeholders have a wealth of

12 information. It would be minding

13 government reports and --

14 MS. CANTRAL: Results. The

15 credible information we are familiar

16 with, the sectors and hopefully to

17 capture on that as well.

18 Let's finish out this on Joe and

19 Karen and close it out and turn to the

20 public comments and see if there are any

21 other comments and summarize and see if

22 we are ready to move on. Joe?

23 MR. ATANGAN: I'm sorry. I'm going

24 to be -- I'm confused here with regard to

25 what the deliverable is with regard to

69

1 the regional assessment. I mean it says

2 yeah, you'll do one, it's going to be a

3 business line condition and lists out

4 these, I guess, subjects, geophysical

5 history and culture. And my concern is

6 with the limited resources you have, I

7 understand we want it all, but we are

8 clearly not going to do geophysical

9 survey and not conduct a full biological

10 assessment of this. So I'm trying to get

11 a grasp of what's in the realm of

12 possible based upon the resources we

13 have.

14 What are we really expecting as

15 deliverables from this regional

16 assessment?

17 MS. McKAY: I would expect mainly a

18 compilation of what's out there, almost

19 like a literature search, but putting it

20 all in one place. Of course 75,000 is

21 not going to do any of these assessments

22 it's only going to be barely enough to

23 kind of lay out what's being done and so

24 there are physical assessments going on

25 in the wind. Engineer areas, we can

70

1 point to those and do hyperlinks to

2 those. Summarize them to the extent they

3 are done and available. Same thing with

4 the Save the Whales. There are reports

5 out there on that. It has to be cursory

6 summary statements about the condition

7 with links to the more in depth reports

8 is the way I'm imaging now Tony do you

9 want to say something?

10 MR. McDONALD: Tony McDonald,

11 again.

12 I'm listening. We are trying to

13 figure out who to advance what we

14 perceived to be a small part of a bigger

15 effort. I'm trying to figure out where

16 you all want to go in terms of the charge

17 and opportunities.

18 I guess I would suggest a couple

19 things: One is that we would really like

20 to think of this -- beginning the

21 assessment as setting up a framework for

22 rolling assessment. So we certainly have

23 a question about whether a document that

24 gives you the current state and

25 consultant gathering information is the

71

1 most useful thing we can do at this

2 point.

3 There is a question in our mind for

4 you. Whether, again, the extent to which

5 we in the portal are already partnering

6 with your agency because that's part of

7 what we do and we also think there is

8 probably, as Marty observed, quite a bit

9 of information you already have in your

10 environmental studies programs and I.S

11 that you have done that provide a

12 baseline. We can leverage what you are

13 doing with our contract to engage in the

14 knowledge that your states have and only

15 come out with a static report because

16 that would be, I think, stale pretty

17 quickly and that's one idea of engage us

18 in the portal. It could be essentially a

19 frame work for rolling assessment.

20 We'll have baseline of information,

21 might site geophysical physical studies

22 that need to be done and inform your data

23 gap analyses and based on preliminary

24 discussions based on feedback, might be

25 about how we leverage this small amount

72

1 of money we have in our grant for your

2 objectives and how we nest that in what

3 you all might be doing as a group to

4 gather information and move forward.

5 That's a thought. We have a little

6 hesitancy in putting out a contract to

7 gather existing and do a literature

8 search. We are not sure how that would

9 advance your broader objectives as we've

10 been listening to the past few days.

11 MS. CHYTALO: The regional

12 assessment I would really like to see is

13 to some specific data selected and

14 examined for trend analysis. The last

15 two decades we've seen some dramatic

16 changes going on the -- resources where

17 fish move and that sort of stuff. The

18 last two decades have been major in

19 comparison looking in some prior ones. I

20 think that will help point us if we look

21 at a data center with 50 years and look

22 as an average. It does not tell us the

23 real story. The last two decades will

24 tell us more of a story where we are

25 headed in the area where people are not

73

1 allowed to fish, management plans or be

2 what you of the resource -- to help up to

3 plan for the ocean and highlight what is

4 so important in certain places and stuff

5 like that.

6 We are looking -- we are looking at

7 space analysis. Let the areas talk and

8 see what they can tell us as to what is

9 so critical and it's like -- have we

10 driven things, activities to occur in

11 certain areas that that is a good thing

12 or a bad thing or whatever at this point.

13 We need to get some better assessment on

14 that. I think -- I think that would help

15 us in the long run.

16 Tony said there is a lot of data

17 available right now. Take a look at

18 certain pieces and prioritize that in

19 some of your objectives or something like

20 that and under the goals and maybe that

21 well help point the way to tell us some

22 story.

23 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you. We'll

24 have an opportunity to revisit this

25 discussion including Karen's idea after

74

1 we hear from some members of the public.

2 Some signed up for public comment. I'll

3 tell you the order these people will go:

4 Margo Pelligrino, Morgan Gopnik and Ali

5 Chase. You can sign up.

6 Margo Pelligrino.

7 MS. PELLIGRINO: (MARGO PELLIGRINO)

8 I believe the MARCO portal it's a

9 really cool tool. I -- I don't -- maybe

10 I'm not policy monkey enough. I'm sorry

11 to -- if it's an offensive term. I'm not

12 a physicist. I'm a paddler. As I said

13 yesterday I paddled from Miami to Maine,

14 Miami to New Orleans, L.B.I. to

15 Washington, D.C. on the -- and Seattle to

16 San Diego. And last year partnering with

17 Clean Ocean Action, Cape May to Montauk.

18 Being able to paddle in the ocean

19 and having a clean and melt my own -- my

20 paddles are not purely recreational.

21 They are an attempt to educate the public

22 as much as possible about the issues and

23 why we do need some kind of a plan for

24 our ocean.

25 So, I get a little confused. I am

75

1 sorry if I'm sounding absolutely ignorant

2 about the standards, because you know

3 some of it is very simple. Shipping does

4 not shake. It's fairly static. Some

5 times big shipping planes -- lines might

6 shift or whatever. Cables, once they are

7 laid and put down under the ocean are

8 pretty sedentary unless something big

9 happens. For the most part they are

10 where they are.

11 Commercial and recreational can --

12 fishing can shift somewhat according to

13 species but, you know, there is enough

14 folks. I feel partnerships that can be

15 used made with universities like with

16 Rutgers and Monmouth and stock top the

17 data. There is it needs to be assembled

18 understanding. That's a money issue.

19 The partnerships are going to be crucial.

20 As far as I got that -- little

21 fliers about the recreational meeting

22 upcoming up for Rutgers. One of my

23 concerns I did email Greg Roth, the

24 stewardship in ocean policy, director at

25 America Academy, new association, which

76

1 is this country's, one of their oldest

2 environmental and regulation

3 organization. He was clueless this was

4 going on. I don't know he was clueless

5 about New Jersey specifically or if she

6 he was clueless about all of the ones,

7 all of the little sessions that had taken

8 place in the region.

9 He is someone who should not -- if

10 you care about stakeholder involvement

11 you'll get these big organizations, big

12 groups of paddlers together or at least a

13 lot of them. They are policy people.

14 They are old and large and have a lot of

15 folks -- I have 30 seconds. How does

16 that go fast?

17 I would like -- thinking, too, in

18 the interest of that working with these

19 groups, Surf Rider's doing -- doing a

20 wonderful survey. They attached paddlers

21 need lines. They are slightly different

22 uses. We need to tap in to maximize the

23 partnerships. They are out there and I

24 actually volunteer my services for that,

25 but there are ways to get it. We would

77

1 like to see it put up there on the MARCO

2 (inaudible), although is a dynamic change

3 sifting about. Not so much as you would

4 think. I think I did have another --

5 that's like one thing, actually sifting.

6 I'm wearing a T-shirt today I actually

7 belong the --

8 MS. GOPNIK: (MORGAN GOPNIK)

9 Morgan Gopnik, I don't think there

10 is anything new. We've spoken and spoke

11 a lot last night. I'm going to start

12 with an addendum to things I said

13 yesterday which leads what I want to say

14 about data pretty quick yesterday. What

15 I didn't say, which I should have said

16 and kind of assumed I -- it went without

17 saying.

18 I'm extremely supportive of what

19 you are doing. If I offer criticism,

20 it's because I care. I want this to

21 really work well. I think there is huge

22 responsibility and there is always ways

23 of doing things better.

24 On the data, the one thing I wanted

25 to put on the record, some of you heard

78

1 me say this before: There is a little

2 bit of a danger and I'm coming from

3 somewhat academic point of view, but I

4 think it's effects the practicalities.

5 There is a little bit of a danger when

6 you rely on maps. Anything that does not

7 fit on a map tends to get ignored. There

8 are a lot of important things we need to

9 know and understand that don't lend

10 themselves to being mapped.

11 So there is a whole lot of social

12 science data about the communities,

13 communities' relations to social space,

14 sort of more cultural information, a lot

15 of information that is very relevant to

16 the marine planning, not the stuff you

17 put on a map when you talk about data.

18 And I would also say it's not data you

19 wouldn't -- compliance, but data points,

20 knowledge. When you talk about data

21 information and knowledge we need to find

22 a way and it's not easy and something we

23 struggle with all of the time to capture

24 that less numerical data that can't be

25 easily be put on a map.

79

1 MR. GOVE: (MATT GOVE)

2 Matt Gove. I can't stop commenting

3 here. One thing I think you mentioned,

4 Laura talking about some sort of

5 breakdown to show what is going on, that

6 would be a great idea. I've heard

7 everything from its impossible don't try

8 it to it's not that bad. It would be

9 great to see costs, timing of a FACA

10 process, what hurdles you have to get

11 through.

12 As far as data, we'll use this as a

13 time to plug the survey. Thanks. Thanks

14 for mentioning it. There are postcards

15 out in the lobby. It has the link to the

16 survey. If you've been in the beach in

17 the last 12 months you are our target.

18 Jump on so we can have some great data

19 for the portal. It's up until the end of

20 December so we have a few more updates on

21 that. We have had 700 surveys completed.

22 We are on a good track trying to get as

23 many as possible. That's about 3,000

24 data points of people on the coast saying

25 where they've done their recreational

80

1 activities.

2 As was mentioned, we are doing --

3 economic dated and demographic data.

4 That's interesting stuff once that come

5 in. If you have not connected the dots,

6 we've been working in collaboration with

7 MARCO Emrock Monmouth Ecotrust and Nature

8 Conservancy. The data fits with the

9 other surveys going on the like the

10 boater's survey and participate GAF's.

11 That should all come out great.

12 As I mentioned yesterday, we are

13 doing the survey. We are reaching out to

14 the other recreational groups at the same

15 time to try to get them aware of our RPB

16 process and get them involved. We are

17 not only doing the survey, but doing --

18 telling folks about the meetings and

19 getting the whole notion of getting the

20 planning across.

21 MS. CHASE: (ALI CHASE)

22 Thank you again for the opportunity

23 to comment on this. I have a few quick

24 remarks.

25 It was asked whether the state data

81

1 was going to be incorporated to the

2 portal. That's a massive undertaking.

3 Each state has its own way of originally

4 setting up their own data that can be a

5 goal that's moved toward. That would be

6 truly helpful. A lot of the different

7 projects that I proposed have a crossover

8 between what's happening further out in

9 the ocean and I'm sure in part of it is

10 transmission, but also to projects that

11 will try to straddle different state

12 federal boundaries.

13 And so it's challenging to review

14 if you are trying to toggle between

15 different databases. Super difficulty.

16 The folks in the room, also the state

17 too, but to the extent that it's possible

18 as projects are proposed and come up a

19 file can be provided, that makes it so

20 helpful to be able to use the portal.

21 You can actually take the shape file. I

22 know the wind energy areas do that, but

23 for different proposes that come up and

24 others, it would be great to drop that

25 file on top and see where it's impacting

82

1 different resources. I don't know if

2 things can be put on the portal as they

3 come up. That would be probably the best

4 way to do this. I want to throw that out

5 there.

6 In terms of the regional

7 assessment, clearly we think that's a

8 really important piece and will be

9 providing additional information on that.

10 Thank you all.

11 MR. JOHANSON: (ERIC JOHANSON)

12 Eric Johanson. I have a lot of

13 things in my mind. There are so many, I

14 don't I hope I don't lose any of you.

15 You are talking about doing a lot of

16 studies. I represent the commercial

17 shipping industry currently right now.

18 That is a viable and part of our nation.

19 You know, trades sustained this country.

20 This country, we must remain with trades.

21 Why is it so part of the Meridian blue

22 highway? That's really part in the

23 future, to make our country run.

24 Currently a tug and barge can move a

25 two -- 456 containers for the equivalent

83

1 of five units of fuel. If we put that

2 same amount of cargo on a train we talk

3 about 20 units or four times as much fuel

4 as a commercial shipping industry would

5 have. If we put it on trucks, it would

6 be 100 units of fuel. We have to make

7 sure we are serious about what we are

8 doing here and make sure what economic

9 impacts we are talking about. Roadside

10 congestion costs us billions of dollars

11 every year. This industry keeps our

12 trucks off the road moving the products

13 safely and securely.

14 I heard the talks about perhaps

15 moving our routes a little bit that would

16 force us to go out a little further.

17 That would reduce our deliverable dates

18 and also increase our fuel consumptions.

19 What does that impact? Coast Guard

20 data has told us on an intelligence

21 report 2012, on any given day there is

22 4,500 vessels in the Atlantic coast. If

23 you move everything broadly -- give you

24 an indication how much additional fuel

25 this would cost. The entire impact is

84

1 offshore energy management. We would be

2 burning more energy by moving the traffic

3 by gaining from wind farms.

4 What is our overall goal here? To

5 put in something that everyone thinks is

6 a good idea or do something good for

7 America.

8 I'm going to say to this committee

9 that you should be doing what is right by

10 keeping our traffic lanes open, not only

11 just for today currently, but what we are

12 forecasting for the future. Which, as

13 the gentleman said, the Panama Canal

14 opens up, we'll have a whole lot more

15 specific here -- 80 percent of the cargo

16 coming into New York Harbor stays within

17 New York, 20 percent only goes outside.

18 When that comes here its going to have to

19 go outside. It's better to be on a

20 marine highway and hopefully we can keep

21 it -- keeping its routes open only not

22 only for today but the future. New

23 technologies have seen new routes opening

24 up. We have to identify those new routs

25 and make sure the wind farms will not be

85

1 put into an area where the traffic routes

2 will be.

3 MR. WILLIAM BROADLEY: (WILLIAM

4 BROADLEY)

5 I'm William Broadley. I represent

6 the Bay of Delaware. I have worked with

7 Eric as far as commercial shipping. What

8 my place in all of this has been has been

9 what I've done through the years is I've

10 worked with American Waterways Operators

11 Ameritus' committee, but more important

12 as a commercial pilot.

13 I get a lot of different ships.

14 What I've done is talk to actual

15 operators, actual captains and mates on

16 ships and talked to them about routing

17 measures. I then went and drew up

18 routing measures, said okay, how does

19 this look? They threw it back at me.

20 No, these are terrible. So I tried again

21 and they still said they are terrible and

22 I came up with a set and I distributed

23 some around American Waterways -- pretty

24 good. I've had some people on the ships

25 say these are pretty good.

86

1 Anyway, that's what I've kind of

2 brought up and then I've sent them to

3 John Walters and they -- and my own name.

4 I've not done it with any organization.

5 I would like to bring up to you is

6 what I modeled these after is I've looked

7 all over the world. I wept into the

8 North Sea, went into Europe, went into

9 the English Channel and saw what was

10 doing -- I also sailed in the English

11 Channel and North Sea. I remember not

12 very nice memories years ago wearing out

13 a grease pencil trying to plot hundreds

14 of -- static, setting up lanes and doing

15 these. We made things and it became a

16 lot better.

17 I'm trying to say every body, every

18 body is contained here looking at what

19 the individual states are doing, but

20 there is also a great model up there.

21 What happened in Europe and the

22 other thing I would like to say is that

23 I've seen where it didn't work out very

24 well. That's maybe just as significant

25 as what has worked and so I'm going go to

87

1 tell you if you just want to take a look

2 at something that didn't work out very

3 well and maybe say don't go there, maybe

4 that's one thing. I have not heard there

5 in this whole conversation don't go to

6 the Gulf of Mexico. Every mariner that

7 goes through the West Gulf of Mexico says

8 please don't do that. Don't do that.

9 It's a mess.

10 So I can fill you in on the details

11 of that and maybe that's a little

12 something different for the conversation.

13 Thank you very much for your

14 comments.

15 MS. ZIPF: (CINDY ZIPF)

16 I thank you again. Cindy Zipf from

17 Clean Ocean Action.

18 I have a few random comments. I

19 have not had as much time to play around

20 on it as I would like, but I wanted to

21 just emphasize some of the things I heard

22 today from a different perspective is

23 that there is an awful lot going on out

24 there that people do, fishing, diving

25 that are secret, that are their special

88

1 locations that they don't want anybody to

2 know about. There is a lot of

3 competitiveness out there.

4 So, from what I've learned from

5 many of our fishing, boating, diving

6 friends is that there is a lot going on

7 out there you might not be able to map

8 and so I wanted to echo what Morgan said

9 about what you have on a map doesn't mean

10 there isn't other things going on that

11 really need to be emphasized especially

12 in an area we have so many millions of

13 people that go out and enjoy special

14 areas.

15 I also wanted to emphasize that

16 there is an -- the economics, we know it

17 usually coming down to economics. It is

18 hard to put value on plankton, so

19 plankton, oxygen that's produced by the

20 plankton. These economic volumes need to

21 be assessed and considered and I -- it

22 was on this side of the room the emphasis

23 was on ocean currents which change and

24 climate change. We are seeing a lot of

25 differences now. This is one of the rare

89

1 places on earth where the cold water and

2 warm waters mix from the Labrador current

3 and those warm corridors and how you map

4 a warm corridor and those are where the

5 fish are going to be congregating and

6 that's along the gulf stream is where

7 fishermen want to fish. So these things

8 are very dynamic and I don't know how you

9 map them.

10 So I think, again, goes to more

11 against the point. We need to have that

12 context.

13 I also want to remind folks there

14 are some tools, I don't know if Marty has

15 brought it to your attention, New Jersey

16 did a report that identified the economic

17 values of the beaches, just as beaches

18 not necessarily a tourism designation,

19 but a protective zone or as just as a

20 beach, not with any sort of human use at

21 all. So I don't know if that can be

22 translated, but that's important.

23 Also, the lens by which you are

24 looking at the data, I know when we were

25 looking at some applications for

90

1 industrial activities sometimes the

2 applicant looks at a lens as to the most

3 valued areas as opposed to maybe areas

4 that are used, but not used as much.

5 So, for example, in the shipping

6 example there are -- traffic all over

7 there, maybe most of them use a certain

8 lane. There is huge activity going on

9 throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. So

10 that lengths by which you look at the

11 data needs to be carefully considered

12 because, again, as I said earlier, there

13 is a lot going on out there. If you just

14 look at the most utilized in terms of

15 saying this is going to impact the least

16 amount of people, if we put it here there

17 will be impact. But not the most impact

18 it's going to come down to trade office

19 and we are going to do our best to try to

20 not let that happen.

21 That's it. In this context. I

22 again emphasis just a little something

23 from yesterday and these opportunities to

24 provide dialogue and I talked to Tom

25 about this earlier as a very -- is not

91

1 very conducive to conversation. This

2 isn't a public hearing that is supposed

3 to be a dialogue as. I talked to it you

4 would be nice for us to have a

5 conversation. If you have a question

6 about what I'm saying or something that's

7 something to consider.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

9 Did you want to offer a comment?

10 MR. GREENFIELD: (BRENT GREENFIELD)

11 Brent Greenfield with the National

12 Ocean Policy Coalition. I want to make

13 some comments on the MARCO data portal

14 and regional ocean assessment.

15 Data and information used by this

16 body, including any regional social

17 assessments or specific components of

18 such assessments, must be based on sound

19 science, comply with strict integrity

20 safeguards, laws, protocols and

21 requirements include socioeconomic

22 component and ensure that all of the

23 region's potential economic uses and

24 resources are accounted for. This must

25 include data for those uses and resources

92

1 that although not currently being

2 utilized could be put to use in the

3 future.

4 As one example and as mentioned

5 yesterday, there is bipartisan support in

6 Virginia at both the statehouse and in

7 congress for conventional as well as

8 renewable energy development off the

9 Virginia coast. Seismic data for

10 conventional energy resources in this

11 area is based on data that was collected

12 in the 1980s and access is now being

13 sought to obtain new seismic data using

14 advanced technologies.

15 Thus, data must not be utilized to

16 inform RPB or individual agency

17 activities unless and until timely and

18 relevant datasets for all potential

19 commercial and recreational uses are

20 available.

21 One final point is that the working

22 group's report on MACRO products and

23 services mentions that a regional ocean

24 assessment should be guided by and

25 reflect ocean planning priorities and

93

1 specific ecosystem management objectives

2 for the region. Such priorities and

3 objectives should be developed based on

4 meaningful stakeholder engagement and the

5 input and advice that results from such

6 engagement.

7 Thank you for the opportunity to

8 comment.

9 MR. FULLER: (JACK FULLER)

10 Something occurred to me on the

11 possible use of the portal and I'm not

12 sure how realistic this is, but the

13 portal is involved with information and

14 information that might be poor to

15 stakeholders. One of the things that I

16 have a problem with is compiling

17 information on what comes out in the

18 federal register, so volume must and so

19 much information it comes out almost

20 every day.

21 I was wondering if the portal can

22 be used for publishing a short note or a

23 paragraph on any federal rule that might

24 pertain to the Mid-Atlantic ocean area.

25 It wouldn't have to be the entire

94

1 register article, it -- it all would have

2 to do is be a brief paragraph.

3 One of the -- there are problems

4 involved in that. I assume it would have

5 to be updated weekly in order to allow

6 stakeholders to come in, but it's just a

7 thought. Thank you very much.

8 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you.

9 All right. So thank you to

10 everyone who offered public comment and

11 we'll have another one this afternoon. I

12 want to take one more shot at the

13 architecture for this particular meeting

14 now and how it was designed with regard

15 to the public comment sections.

16 I think that the members of the RPB

17 are hearing you loud and clear about

18 wanting to construct opportunities that

19 feel more like a dialogue and engaging in

20 in different ways and we will talk more,

21 a lot about that and hearing the feedback

22 about the way the sessions have been

23 conducted. They have a business agenda

24 for this first public hearing and in

25 thinking about designing that and

95

1 providing opportunities to hear from you

2 and still get through their agenda and

3 have an opportunity to talk with each

4 other because this was their first time

5 sitting around the table with each other.

6 The approach that they landed on is

7 the straddling discussion with the public

8 comment in between is not as satisfying

9 as a realtime interaction with you as

10 individuals. The idea was to then come

11 back to the topic. So there can be

12 further discussion an reflection about

13 what folks heard when you have heard your

14 ideas.

15 In recognizing that is not feeling

16 satisfying as I've just said I think

17 there can be an opportunity to be

18 creative and think about what it is to do

19 that in the next meeting, continue to

20 share your ideas to shape that in a way

21 that can be more inclusive and more of a

22 dialogue and still enable them to do with

23 they what they need to do.

24 For this meeting this is the way

25 the agendas have been designed. We'll

96

1 play that out for this afternoon and

2 then, you know, take a hard look at how

3 the agenda for the next full RPB meeting

4 is designed to be more accommodating.

5 We have a few minutes before we

6 take a break at noon, but in the spirit

7 of what I just said and reflecting some

8 of the ideas and revisiting what we were

9 talking about before we heard from public

10 comments, Pedro you've had idea to kick

11 us off.

12 MR. RAMOS: Some of the members of

13 the public kind of asked this question, I

14 was not really clear, in the portal, how

15 much land base resource information is in

16 there.

17 MS. McKAY: Well, there is the

18 information that I've described about the

19 parts. There is a lot of information

20 about the commodities coming into each

21 port. As you can see, the portal does

22 not really draw an inland boundary and

23 the map continues inland and there is an

24 opportunity to put on things that are

25 relevant to ocean planning. But at the

97

1 moment there is not a whole lot that's

2 land based that I can think of off the

3 bat, other than the Newport Commodity

4 Information.

5 MR. RAMOS: One of the reasons I

6 was asking the question few of the

7 reasons is that flyways are really

8 important, you know, wetlands and where

9 they are and whatnot. We had some

10 lessons learned. We had wetland projects

11 after the oil spill in the gulf and moved

12 actual flyways for millions of birds

13 temporarily until we could address the

14 issues we were having and you know, there

15 was some things we learned from that.

16 God forbid there is another disaster in

17 the Mid-Atlantic in our backyard, but

18 that type of information will be helpful,

19 not necessarily more on as assessment

20 side, here is the wetlands and whatever.

21 If there is another disaster then we can

22 use that information and do some more,

23 you know, building some temporary

24 wetlands like that which is what we did

25 not in the Gulf.

98

1 I guess another area where these

2 things might be for is endangered

3 species. If we talk about bringing in

4 communication lines we want to avoid

5 certain areas. That is something we

6 normally do on a regular basis and also

7 soils and land use that will effect

8 sedimentation in some of the shipping

9 lanes. I'm not sure how to make that fit

10 into this. There are some things to

11 consider where making culture being

12 handle that.

13 MS. McKAY: I think of course,

14 again, its ideal portal that has

15 absolutely everything under the sun in

16 it. Can we billed that? I'm not sure.

17 A lot of our state portals have that

18 information you are talking about that

19 would require some crosstalk between the

20 MARCO organization portal and our case in

21 Virginia the coastal problems.

22 If you have two monitors you can

23 pull them on on each monitor. The

24 Department of Information is pretty

25 intense. You could make the connections.

99

1 Whether we can get it all in one portal

2 is a really big challenge. But again,

3 it's important we strive to find certain

4 layers, maybe only a few and maybe we can

5 pry or -- a couple more land based that

6 would be extremely helpful to have on the

7 MARCO portal.

8 MR. RAMOS: I totally agree. We

9 want to make sure what is here and what

10 isn't there.

11 MS. McKAY: I just had another --

12 totally different. I wanted to respond

13 to Morgan's comment about the portal, not

14 everything being map -- not everything

15 being about a map. That's something,

16 again, our portal team is looking at in

17 terms of trying to tell stories and

18 perhaps having parts of the portal, maybe

19 a short video clip with a video of

20 someone talking about its use. Why it's

21 important to them not the space aspect

22 but, dimension to get at what you were

23 talking about, Morgan.

24 MR. ZEMBA: I would like to tie

25 this back this to a discussion we had

100

1 yesterday when taking a look at the input

2 we are getting from the public and

3 combining it with the input we had about

4 data here, to me it really hits home and

5 starting to hit home the magnitude of the

6 task we have in front of us.

7 I think we talked a good bit about

8 that geographic focus yesterday and given

9 just discussion today on the magnitude of

10 this date for this subject over here for

11 it reinforced this need. Do we need to

12 start talking on the primary on the --

13 realizing there a linkage to the estuary

14 to the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware

15 starting the focus without including the

16 Chesapeake and Delaware and --

17 MS. CANTRAL: You are giving us a

18 conversation we'll come back to after

19 lunch and revisit the discussion about

20 the goals and geographic focus. This

21 discussion about the tools needed are

22 definitely in the format. Other

23 thoughts?

24 MR. BIGFORD: Just picking up on

25 what Cindy said. We did talk about a way

101

1 to invigorate the exchange of information

2 here for future RPB meetings when we

3 start to think about the agenda. When we

4 get documents maybe right after words or

5 maybe with each speaker it would be three

6 minutes to speak and/or all speakers

7 provide their comments and we engage

8 something like that. That makes it

9 towards that conversation instead of the

10 static presentation.

11 MS. CANTRAL: A lot of interest in

12 doing that, finding whatever the right,

13 you know, equation is something that I

14 can expect to see in future meetings.

15 Anything else about data and

16 information? The discussion that was in

17 progress when we moved to public comment

18 was with regard to the regional

19 assessment and what you wanted to see in

20 there. See in that and you know, what I

21 heard was that recognition you needed to

22 take a practical approach. There are

23 limitations, limitations financial and

24 otherwise what you can do, but thinking

25 about needing a better understanding

102

1 there is a chicken and for example, thing

2 you are starting to get a sense of where

3 you may be headed with your goals, but

4 that's still underdevelopment and that

5 will inform what should be in this

6 assessment.

7 But be mindful about what's unique

8 about this region including the

9 incorporation of traditional knowledge in

10 several senses of that word about kind of

11 expertise that people who are on the

12 ground or in the water that have to bring

13 our friends and colleagues in first

14 nations. A few other tools that might be

15 helpful to look at as well as the ocean

16 in direction as a potential opportunity

17 to assess and that those folks want to be

18 available to you to be helpful.

19 And then, you know, building on or

20 the opportunities to use the portal to

21 build on what you have to leverage that

22 to keep the assessment more than a static

23 document or something that can be living

24 and part of a framework of a growing

25 effort.

103

1 And then an idea to be thinking

2 about that I think is related to the

3 assessment, but maybe not is this idea of

4 being able to do some trend analysis.

5 So, those are some highlights from

6 the discussion that I -- did I miss

7 anything or anything wrong?

8 Anything to say before we wrap up

9 for lunch? It's about time to do that.

10 MS. McKAY: Just want to say that I

11 hope it's -- kind of swirling in my head

12 now what this whole thing could look

13 like. I like the idea of kind of rolling

14 assessment. That kind of marries up with

15 a rolling plan. I think that those

16 concepts are coming together a little bit

17 more clearly for me in my mind and the

18 idea that we do in fact need a plan. We

19 just have to remember it's not a point in

20 time and not carved in stone, but we have

21 to put something out there to the world.

22 This is our goal and what we want it to

23 look like we need to be constantly Lee

24 updating and adapting as we use

25 information from more assessments, more

104

1 information to keep adapting the plan.

2 It sounds like an awful lot of work

3 and sounds like we what we need to do.

4 MS. CANTRAL: All right. That is a

5 great. Closing note: For lunch why

6 don't we take a break and we'll come back

7 at 1:00 p.m. and we'll pick up the

8 resuming discussion or revisiting the

9 discussion about goals and geographic

10 focus. See you back at 1:00.

11 (Whereupon a luncheon recess

12 was taken at 12:00 p.m.)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105

1 (Whereupon, the meeting

2 resumes at 1:20 p.m.)

3 MS. CANTRAL: Wherever this

4 discussion goes today, getting the goals

5 to a state where it's RPB is ready to go

6 out an engage all of you and others in

7 the region in some meaningful dialogue

8 about the defining goals for this region

9 and the regional planning process is what

10 you are have here. This is still very

11 early on in the stages.

12 First of all, what we heard people

13 saying, a high-level statement, not

14 complex and time consuming vision,

15 exercise, but perhaps a one-page minimum

16 with a focus on a vision for the future

17 of this region. Perhaps by 2025 you can

18 see some elements that could be reflected

19 in the vision statement which is

20 acknowledging what you want to be seen by

21 that time a ocean ecosystems helping

22 coastal and ocean economies.

23 Compatibilities among current and

24 emergent uses are maximized and conflicts

25 of minimized. Public resources are

106

1 leveraged across jurisdictions and used

2 efficiently and effectively. States,

3 federal agencies and tribes make good

4 decisions, efficiently in a coordinated

5 under their existing authorities.

6 Stakeholders are engaged in management

7 decisions that affect their lines, add

8 life, data is high quality and

9 coordinated to make inform decisions.

10 So, what we were referred to as

11 lenses are maybe some framing thoughts

12 that were occurring ideas you offered as

13 part of your discussion is that in

14 developing goals it would be appropriate

15 to focus on shared interests across the

16 ocean, across the Mid-Atlantic states and

17 to be looking to focus on where this

18 process, this body can add value and make

19 a difference for the region for

20 Mid-Atlantic ocean that in the structure

21 it would make sense to develop high-level

22 goals and develop the details about

23 specific sectors, specific actions and

24 part of the objectives and again,

25 recurring thought. They need to be

107

1 achievable practical and measurable.

2 Some other thoughts. We heard

3 about draft goals again, not the -- not

4 to say these are goal statements, but the

5 things the panel on objectives is that

6 you would like to take advantage of

7 traditional and now economic

8 opportunities.

9 We've heard a range of views about

10 ocean energy. We also heard that this

11 notion of responsible is a key concept.

12 We heard some discussion about protect,

13 restore and improve ecosystem health and

14 another thing that came up around the

15 table several times and I think merits

16 more discussion among you is the notion

17 of resiliency and the changing climate,

18 the need for offshore sand and

19 implications of that use and current

20 experience of Superstorm Sandy came up as

21 part of that discussion.

22 So we pose a question and you can

23 see on the slide how would you like to

24 account for this in the framework,

25 whether it's the development of a goal or

108

1 somehow accounting for the importance of

2 contents related to resiliency and

3 claimant change.

4 So, with all of that in mind a stab

5 at some possible revised goals and some

6 examples, just place holders and words to

7 be fleshed out that could represent some

8 possible objectives are two here, one

9 focused on stewardship which is another

10 word that came up a lot in your

11 discussions. Protect and restore

12 ecosystem health and functionality

13 account for key habitat. Some possible

14 objectives that would be related to that

15 goal would be accounting for ecosystem

16 value and of the -- wild life, climate

17 change. These are all things that came

18 up in your discussions.

19 These are concepts right? Not

20 articulated. What you would want as a

21 goal statement and two, take advantage of

22 FACA and traditional new economic

23 opportunities to create jobs in a way

24 responsible that accounts for future

25 generations. And then some possible

109

1 objectives that are related to that and

2 reflect what is in your bullets and you

3 were discussing yesterday would be

4 related to efficient and safe port

5 access. Facilitate responsible offshore

6 wind development, ensure access to key

7 fishing grounds, retain areas for

8 military testing, training and

9 operations.

10 So, in regard to the geographic

11 focus for now because it may be evolving

12 as you are thinking about the goals and

13 where you want to put your efforts

14 evolves that a primary focus on state and

15 federal waters to the edge of the -- to

16 encloses water and bays and estuarial

17 land north and south borders at state

18 lines.

19 Key connections to be made and

20 practical estuaries, coastal land and

21 need to be iterative and may adjust with

22 the development and evolving

23 circumstances against it for now. And

24 then something for you to chew on

25 regarding a time line for how to proceed

110

1 with these goals, have some discussion

2 about it right now, prepare for public

3 review including a draft vision, draft

4 goals, objectives and action and have

5 that ready for review by January. That

6 would be a document going out for review

7 that would be you would be engaging in

8 some fashion and some series of meetings

9 or opportunities to engage in dialogue.

10 There would be robust public input

11 and targeted stakeholder engagement about

12 those ideas in the spring, January, March

13 the first quarter. Then a revised suite

14 of ideas that comes back for RPB and

15 review at a second meeting in April if we

16 are sticking to the broader time line we

17 discussed yesterday with assumptions that

18 a next meeting of this type would happen

19 in April. An objective for that meeting

20 to be to finalized. The meeting and that

21 goal an continuing developing detailed

22 objectives and actions that become part

23 of a draft work plan and it would be --

24 this would be done in concert with

25 stakeholders in incorporating stakeholder

111

1 input along the -- through the summer of

2 2014 and then by the time when you get to

3 a third RPB meeting in 2014 September

4 time frame. There would be a work plan

5 well underway and in draft and be on the

6 table for discussion at that meeting.

7 So, that's our attempt to

8 reflect back to you some of what we

9 heard and synthesizing and give you

10 something to react to. So, now is

11 your time to react.

12 MR. PABST: Thanks. That's a

13 great, you know, set up and distillation

14 of a way forward.

15 I just had a couple of initial

16 thoughts based on what I'm hearing and I

17 wanted to draw attention to kind of

18 bounce around a little bit, but on the

19 possible revised goal slide with possible

20 objectives.

21 We used a couple words protect,

22 restore and health. In my conversations

23 just yesterday and a little bit today of

24 I've encountered different definitions

25 people have for those words and they mean

112

1 different things based on a sector,

2 whether it's fishing, environmental,

3 whether it's industry. So I think to the

4 extent we want to incorporate those into

5 a goal statement we need to put some

6 caveats or further definition on them.

7 Protect in a lot of areas means you

8 will protect it from anything, fishing in

9 a protected area.

10 Restoration, I don't think any of

11 that have in our mission to do

12 restoration in and of itself. If there

13 was an area that needed to sort of

14 corrective action we should not ignore

15 that. That was vital to the ecosystem

16 function. I'll say that. We should also

17 consider that, but we want to be

18 realistic and now this is -- we are not

19 going to develop a civil works program as

20 a result of this effort, but we want to

21 take advantage of opportunities.

22 Need and health, I think a lot of

23 the environmental agencies have moved

24 away from the term and gotten into more

25 of a function-based definition. I don't

113

1 have a better one right now than

2 functionality. I know that's not a good

3 word, meets needs -- health offers. The

4 same thing. What does that really mean?

5 How do you measure you are that and

6 thinking along those lines? We'll have

7 some good discussion about that.

8 Where in the vision or objectives,

9 again following up on what Roddy talked

10 about yesterday is the tribal ways and

11 tribal knowledge concept and a part of

12 this is to make sure that's being

13 retained as still able to function their

14 ways. I want to make sure that was in

15 and that came out of the stakeholders'

16 discussion last night. We were fortunate

17 to have some of the NEP reps. The

18 possibility of having a representative

19 from the various estuaries and bay

20 programs as part of the state liaison

21 group possibly as a way to find that

22 bridge, that gap between the estuary

23 programs around the -- we are doing in

24 the ocean and still having a line we feel

25 might be a way to draw the line. I'm

114

1 thinking out loud and it may be flushing

2 go out and maybe some of the others want

3 to weigh in, but those are my initial

4 thoughts.

5 MS. COOKSEY: Quickly, something

6 helped me with definitions was some great

7 advise was from our deputy attorney.

8 Joan used the definition in the

9 dictionary. I'd start with that and

10 my -- restore is a big part of what we

11 do. We do restoration.

12 MS. CHYTALO: I guess what the

13 first note on the -- under possible

14 pieces of a vision statement where it has

15 ocean ecosystems helping, able to --

16 ocean -- I would -- I would like to see

17 them separated. I want a healthy ocean

18 for the sake of having an healthy ocean

19 and also in conjunction they can support

20 the other things to occur, you know. I

21 think we should be striving for that

22 aspect too.

23 I work for conversation. That's

24 the mission of my agency. I have to

25 worry about the resources and their use.

115

1 There is two separate pieces. I kind of

2 want a few more words put in there.

3 MS. CANTRAL: All right. Tom?

4 MR. BIGFORD: Just to clarify.

5 Also just gets very involved in

6 restoration. The record is a big part of

7 what we do for -- they do for the ocean

8 but I like the benefits and the logic of

9 protect, restore and improve ecosystem

10 health. Protection makes more sense.

11 It's more cost effective than, rather

12 than cause harm and then have to sort of,

13 as we try to mitigate it and rebuild it

14 and restore it we don't do that very

15 well. Protection makes sense. I do

16 recognize the ecosystem health approach

17 is a way to go. It gets beyond

18 protecting individuals and more about the

19 ecosystem which is a good parallel to

20 thinking about the region. It gets

21 fisheries' management, which is what I

22 think we should do with everything.

23 Time line, resource complaints.

24 There is a huge heap of reality. The

25 time line in slide 6 is slow. Not so

116

1 much the RPB meeting, but the not getting

2 to draft A work plan for a year just to

3 me seems slower than we can do. I know

4 when we need resources, but hopefully we

5 can do that.

6 As I said this morning over

7 breakfast I will never be convinced

8 anyone of the agencies around here can't

9 find anyone to work on this. It's

10 inescapable that you -- we can't find one

11 from each agency? If we had that, it

12 would start to match what the state's

13 been contributing for years. Thanks.

14 MS. CANTRAL: Perhaps we can. We

15 were going to ask you all to revisit the

16 time line what Gwynne presented the time

17 pre presented the time line we wanted to

18 revisit today and this time line

19 necessary its into that broader picture,

20 yes.

21 MR. BIGFORD: Yes.

22 MS. CANTRAL: Your comment is

23 broader than just this because it has --

24 you are right. There are constraints

25 that you are all very well aware of, but

117

1 there is also a great desire to -- there

2 is a balancing act.

3 MR. CAPOBIANCO: I think overall

4 this is -- I was comparing looking back

5 at some of my notes from yesterday. We

6 captured a lot of what was said. I have

7 a lot of thoughts, but I'll share a

8 couple now.

9 On what we heard about draft goals

10 are possible objectives. I very much

11 like the idea of adding specific goals

12 relative to ocean planning and that

13 receives some kind of resiliency

14 objective or result. I think sand is a

15 smart place to start. I think someone

16 mentioned that yesterday. This is what

17 this bullet is reflecting. I like the

18 idea.

19 The restore word. I'll throw in my

20 two cents. I was at a -- I can't

21 remember. 2010 I was at a management

22 council meeting and there was a

23 presentation by a gentleman from NOAA,

24 John Catina, saying, you know, we don't

25 really know how to or actually do ocean

118

1 restoration work. I do think and I am

2 not suggesting we fake restore, but I

3 don't think we are there. We don't do

4 ocean restoration it's -- let's not -- I

5 worry about promising something we can't

6 deliver.

7 Enhancements? Yes. Mitigation or

8 things, you know, like the other

9 activities we are doing in the ocean,

10 yes, but I don't think that's straight

11 restoration.

12 I think I would like to have

13 discussion -- I'll let someone else speak

14 now I would like to have revisions to the

15 goals, No. 3444. You have -- I like the

16 idea -- down the track I would like to

17 get down into some of these objectives

18 and start thinking about, as I mentioned

19 yesterday, boil down what are we going to

20 do under these goals. Let's put things

21 down, a receivable and see if we can find

22 consensus and something in it for

23 everybody at the table in our respective

24 places and try to make something happen.

25 The one thing I would like to see

119

1 added to this is under No. 2. I see

2 we've modified a piece with efficient.

3 That's a good edit. I would like to

4 expand it other maritime industry

5 development and job creation. That I

6 tend to believe is on the near horizon

7 with the all port activities and widening

8 of the Panama Canal and from the New York

9 perspective to generate interest in

10 rebuilding and restoring some of the

11 infrastructure now on the shore that

12 could result in amenities for short sea

13 shipping and real job restoration and job

14 growth.

15 I'll stop there. We are moving in

16 the right direction trying to sort of

17 hone it down. Thank you.

18 MS. SCHULTZ: Focusing on the same

19 slide, No. 2 with regard to the goals. I

20 like how we have packaged a lot of the

21 access issues and others in to concept of

22 promoting economic opportunities and

23 jobs. I think that's a good way of

24 going.

25 There is a couple things that end

120

1 up getting left out of that that we heard

2 over the last couple days, things like

3 recreational access. Recreational access

4 you could look at is as to your -- but

5 not necessarily. We may eventually want

6 to have some form of goal that gets at it

7 from some of the other uses of the ocean

8 but not necessarily under the banner of

9 economic opportunity in creating jobs.

10 MS. CANTRAL: Yes.

11 MR. PABST: Thank you. I did also

12 want to mention about the climate

13 addition of climate change, goals,

14 objectives and we did talk about that and

15 it's -- I haven't been hearing thoughts

16 for a measurable outcome related to that

17 possibly. What's going on with the task

18 force on Sandy, but maybe even something

19 on ocean syndication might be another

20 area we can coalesce around dealing with

21 that threat continues to grow. Some

22 thoughts?

23 MS. CANTRAL: Thoughts? Reactions?

24 Ideas? Things to apply for considering

25 to add or take away?

121

1 MS. SCHULTZ: Looking at the slide

2 on geographic focus for now I still do

3 want to revisit the smaller base, the

4 seaside base just to better understand

5 the degree to which they are being

6 addressed by other programs. Their

7 connection with the ocean and the value

8 of perhaps having some of the goals

9 addressing those issues, but not the big

10 larger estuaries.

11 MR. RAMOS: I thought yesterday we

12 talked about a vision. That was more of

13 a statement, not necessarily a page

14 document. I think the idea behind that,

15 if you want to leave it broad to start

16 and narrow it later when you get down to

17 objectives. So a shorter statement

18 instead, a sentence or two broad and

19 narrow. If you work your way down the

20 steps, follow me?

21 MS. CANTRAL: Do you have the

22 sentence?

23 MR. RAMOS: I do, but I don't want

24 to share. (Laughter)

25 MS. CHYTALO: I, too -- earlier

122

1 about the time line, if there is a way we

2 can speed some of that kind of stuff up

3 so we get more into the meet? I think

4 the more we get towards some of the

5 mapping issues and questions around that

6 people understand what this whole process

7 is about more and I think that's what

8 personalizes it for some folks seeing

9 some of those tapes of issues and I get

10 what you are talking about. I think more

11 we get towards that as there quickly as

12 possible we don't want to lose all of

13 these folks with we are talking about

14 goals and a year from now still it's

15 like, oh my God. Please don't.

16 MR. ROSEN: Just to pick up on --

17 about the division statement. Not to

18 belabor this, this a vision statement for

19 this process or the ocean in this can be

20 a vision statement for anything involving

21 ocean management. That is not this

22 effort per se, I'm trying towards --

23 stand the distance here. I -- more of a

24 question to the group.

25 MS. CANTRAL: Mo?

123

1 MS. BORNHOLDT: I was thinking

2 about the same thing. One of the things

3 that resonated with me was what Greg and

4 Sarah said. Sarah talked to the people

5 in the Mid-Atlantic and you were, Greg,

6 you were talking about it's something we

7 can kind of -- there is a benefit for me

8 to save New York and I'm beginning the

9 challenge to get down to a key sentence

10 that to talk about the vision for the

11 Mid-Atlantic states. The National Ocean

12 Policy kind of ends up these concepts

13 already. It's our tradition what to

14 apply here.

15 This was the other thought I had

16 with regard to the time line. It's

17 discouraging. We are going to be

18 drafting a work plan almost a year from

19 now, but again what's resonating the

20 comments we heard about the stakeholders'

21 engagement, if our work plan table of

22 contents is being -- is going to be

23 wrapped up in this -- think we are going

24 to be constantly revisiting. I'm looking

25 at the calendar. We are at the end of

124

1 September. Is it realistic to be able to

2 have something to go out to the public in

3 November? And you hit that season of

4 holiday and I don't, you know, it's

5 difficult to get robust stakeholder

6 engagement, but that time of year is not

7 necessarily the best time. I want to be

8 able to be aggressive, but I'm also being

9 practical. Unless we do a good job up

10 front vetting and making them meaningful

11 to us in that place you can get it down

12 sooner, but not to where we want to go.

13 MR. MACH: Looking at the National

14 Ocean Policy, if you want verbiage for

15 vision we -- it's already been provided

16 essentially: An America whose

17 stewardship ensues that the ocean, our

18 coasts and the Great Lakes are healthy

19 and resistent, safe and productive and

20 understood and treasured so as to promote

21 the well-being, prosperity and security

22 of present and future generations.

23 You drop Great Lakes out of it and

24 that covers it.

25 MR. RAMOS: We tried. It's not

125

1 even really a sentence. It kind of

2 covers what you talked to promote harmony

3 with people. That covers everything

4 we've bean been talking about or adding

5 predictive of oceans working or people

6 working in harmony with oceans. That is

7 a better way of putting it, but I think

8 it covers everything that way.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Any other thoughts on

10 this? Gwynne?

11 MS. SCHULTZ: Reflecting on the time

12 line as we go through this process and Mo

13 mentioned providing opportunities to

14 reach out to the state liaison group

15 along the way and more formal, but I'm

16 comfortable with the first structure of

17 the first of bringing us through April

18 and having the vision and goals and then

19 really working hard on the objectives and

20 actions.

21 I also see though at that time

22 those items are really a lot of the core

23 of the work plan. We'll have really done

24 quite a bit of the work plan activities,

25 even though we have to get capacity

126

1 assessment, maybe some of the regional

2 assessment and look at the other time

3 line in a few minutes, but realistically

4 if you look for a quality product I would

5 rather the quality of it in getting a lot

6 of people engaged and comfortable than

7 try to move it too quickly.

8 MR. ROSEN: Does that mean we are

9 not meeting for seven months? Is that

10 what that says?

11 MS. BORNHOLDT: The thought at this

12 point this time we are fluid and can

13 change. We'll have another type of these

14 gatherings. We are allowed to have some,

15 you know, conference and executive and I

16 think that maybe we can, Doug and Greg to

17 go in and help refine what we have and

18 keep that flowing around. The RPB has a

19 good thing. I know that BOEM working

20 with NOAA is trying to work with a share

21 of documents and we can still have

22 conversations and development, whether

23 it's a webinar for a meeting or just

24 executive session to work on this and not

25 set it down and pick it back up. It's

127

1 going to be a dialogue. It's not

2 something for prime time and be ready to

3 employ our robust state. At least that's

4 my thought.

5 MR. ROSEN: I'm not encouraging

6 more meetings, but seven months is a long

7 time to for the momentum. I understand

8 there will be work sessions, conference

9 calls. It just means if time goes by

10 quickly I understand maybe that's a

11 realistic date, but seems -- that seems

12 certain amount of --

13 MS. BORNHOLDT: We learned from our

14 August webinar that we can do that and

15 have some calls in between for executive

16 session. You are right. We don't want

17 to lose this momentum and take a look at

18 the calendar and see if we can do

19 something meaningful at a webinar-type

20 meeting.

21 Phase II says is a challenge and

22 you know, as we spoke about it over

23 breakfast we are -- BOEM is now engorged

24 in contractual negotiation with Meridian.

25 We have some challenge next week trying

128

1 to execute that contract on time. We'll

2 build the opportunity for meetings within

3 that, maybe if we are ready to go and

4 feel comfortable how things develop we

5 can move that up into the winter of that

6 year. You can't just hold onto -- we'll

7 do a lot of things in the interim how I

8 see it.

9 MS. CANTRAL: So here is what I

10 suggest, since you are have a lot of

11 discussion around the time line and want

12 to go back and look at that master time

13 line, the draft for those of you with us

14 from the public recall there are big

15 versions, posters, some outside. If you

16 want to take a look at all of the

17 details, but just to close out the

18 discussion about the goals and

19 geographic -- and the slides putting

20 aside the time line slide, what I'm

21 sensing is a general level of comfort

22 with the approach and with what we

23 presented as summary of reflection of

24 what you said yesterday with some need to

25 further refine and think about

129

1 terminology, about perhaps adding a

2 couple of goals, something related to

3 resiliency, something in the framework,

4 an objective perhaps that is related to

5 sand, sand resources, expending the port

6 access objectives to be broader and going

7 for changing and growing needs in that

8 sector.

9 Looking at another goal or some

10 kind of refinement what captured the

11 importance of recreational uses,

12 noncommercial uses of the ocean some good

13 discussion about what to do with the

14 vision. Perhaps make it shorter, maybe

15 one very sweet statement or sentence, but

16 that's for some further discussion.

17 I'm sure there is other comments

18 that were shared I've missed, but those

19 are high volumes of things I got in my

20 notes as I was listening. So I think

21 that the step for now is to move on and

22 talk about the time line and see if we

23 can be as expeditious about your views

24 about the time line and move to the

25 charter discussion and we'll have a

130

1 public comments section which I'm

2 guessing may include some documents about

3 the discussion we've been having right

4 now.

5 Does that make sense to folks?

6 We have a time line. That's at tab

7 3 and Gwynne, I'll kick this back to you

8 to focus people on the -- one of the

9 recurring or overarching things of the

10 meeting is a need of balance and

11 expectations. So it's the desire to do

12 everything very well, very thoroughly and

13 very fast. What you are able to

14 accommodate. So that has impressions for

15 this time on. So, stating the obvious

16 with that, I'll turn it over to Gwynne.

17 MS. SCHULTZ: What I'll focus on is

18 I think the left-hand column that looks

19 at the 2013 through 2014. With the

20 acknowledgment recognition of the bold

21 arrow data, the collection sharing

22 integration and adaptation of plan

23 products that will be continual, but

24 refreshing your memories again on what

25 was in that left column. It's about us

131

1 organizing our operations. It's about

2 having a stake -- stakeholder engagement

3 mechanisms instituted and making progress

4 on both of those bullets over the

5 yesterday and today.

6 The next one is where it relates to

7 topic at hand where we were going to have

8 the vision goals, objectives, specific

9 actions, principals and geographic focus

10 area established. Stakeholder input in

11 here. We actually have public engagement

12 and further describing skill, which is

13 relatively -- and the goal is finalized

14 by the spring of 2014. I believe that's

15 consistent with what we were discussing.

16 Here is where it parts a little

17 bit. The fourth bullet down where it

18 says goals -- the work plan -- start

19 developing in 2014 and first iteration of

20 2014.

21 So, I think that what the second

22 iteration of what this personal meeting

23 and this would be to make we need to

24 revisit that. Just what course we want

25 to take and the last bullet, we can begin

132

1 development of the product regional

2 assessment which we've been talking about

3 on some line capacity assessment is still

4 an unknown right now. We have not talked

5 about how we would establish that and 20,

6 13, 20, 14.

7 And finally the MARCO data we have

8 been talking about. It seems to me to be

9 somewhat consistent. What we talked

10 about over the last couple takes with the

11 exception of the final work plan and then

12 I open it up to other things I want to

13 comment on that as well as other things

14 that we have not been thinking about or

15 that we did touch base on over the last

16 two days that might impact this time

17 line.

18 MR. ATANGAN: More of a mechanics

19 question. I see the time line and I'm

20 trying to get a feel for lots of action

21 needs to take place here. Who is doing

22 it? I just want to make sure we leave

23 here with not just a set of tasks, but

24 actually some feel of who is going to

25 produce these documents and if it's a

133

1 working group piece, that's fine. I just

2 kind of would like to leave here with an

3 understanding of okay, this group has the

4 pass for developing the vision. Who is

5 going to perform the task and when it's

6 effective, to be delivered. Time lines

7 are great as long as you've got someone

8 working on that time line.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Yes.

10 MR. BIGFORD: Sarah is the one who

11 put it on the line this morning saying

12 there was 22 people on the RPB and only

13 about seven of them or six of us are

14 doing a lot of the work. I think that

15 what Joe just said is a challenge to

16 those people that have not contributed as

17 much as others. It's got to be level we

18 need contributions from people who had

19 have not contributed with others who have

20 along with sustained contributions.

21 Other thoughts about the questions

22 that Gwynne posed, putting aside the time

23 line even though that's not important, we

24 hear you. But the questions that she

25 posed related to the development of the

134

1 work plan and two approaches, one way to

2 think about it. The work plan,

3 essentially, the basic outline of the

4 work plan starts to be conceptualized

5 now. In some sense you start to get a

6 sense of what that is going to be. It

7 has to be built out, but that is -- it's

8 a process that is starting now and taking

9 you into greater detail. As the detail

10 materializes what you put into that. I

11 think that's what was intended the way

12 it's written in the time line.

13 What is reflected here on the slide

14 may be, you know, may be more practical

15 approach. I think again, Gwynne, I

16 understand you some have reactions about

17 that. Sarah I saw your light go off, but

18 please.

19 MS. COOKSEY: I don't mean to put

20 people on the spot.

21 MR. ATANGAN: But you will.

22 MS. COOKSEY: Perhaps I will.

23 Based upon this the second goal bullet

24 which says robust public input and

25 targeted stakeholder engagement would

135

1 start in January, so that begs the

2 question what is supposed to happen

3 between now and January.

4 MS. BORNHOLDT: One of the thoughts

5 would be we start working on that liaison

6 committee. I think we all talked about

7 the concept was great and needed just to

8 have a little more some meat put on the

9 skeleton on that particular concept to

10 figure out how RPB members could

11 contribute to that one.

12 I think we heard someone with

13 regard to reaching out and using our

14 comment, our database having informal

15 opportunities to engage stakeholders. We

16 are going to have to figure out between

17 now and then these are mechanisms you and

18 Tom and your worker came up with good

19 concepts. See what those are to fully

20 implement them in January.

21 That goes back to Joe's question as

22 we have an informal interim work group

23 set up. Are we going to continue to use

24 the groups with added assistance, the

25 challenges on the table to help us meet

136

1 that January push, in particular for

2 getting out there with stakeholders an

3 engaging them with goals? It does not

4 answer the question, but that's the

5 intent.

6 I heard around the table this

7 morning as well as today that is what we

8 want to do. We have to have a concept a

9 little more fleshed out to add the

10 resources and people that.

11 MS. CANTRAL: Greg?

12 MR. CAPOBIANCO: Yeah. Looking at

13 sort of I think this part answering

14 Sarah's question about what happens, my

15 thought is having participated on the

16 goals and objectives group is that we

17 have a lot of work to do by January 2014.

18 Really, we have had challenges in getting

19 really good participation on some of our

20 calls that Doug and I did and I think we

21 have to figure out a way of thinking. We

22 have to figure out a way to, you know,

23 ramp up the efforts of the revisions and

24 thinking about the story and how we are

25 going to frame these goals and engage the

137

1 whole RPB and what it says is several

2 conferences or webinars where we get

3 everybody or most everybody attending and

4 you know, start to put it on the table

5 and go through what I was coining

6 yesterday as the boil down. What are the

7 things we are going to do? There is a

8 lot of things to do. We can't do

9 everything.

10 Good start. We have great feed

11 back yesterday and I'm sure we'll get

12 more today and it was a successful way to

13 get additional feedback. I have a lot of

14 ideas swirling in my head, not to refrain

15 the goals, but to tell the story. What

16 is behind the goal which -- one of the

17 things I heard yesterday from I think it

18 was -- maybe it was Mr. Williamson and

19 Greg DiDomenico, you have to have be able

20 to explain what we are doing and why we

21 are doing it or you just going -- if you

22 don't do that before you traipse out and

23 start talking to stakeholders and tables

24 on their turf you are setting yourself up

25 for the target why everything is wrong

138

1 and it's not going to be productive.

2 We have a lot of work. It's -- I

3 don't think it's overly ambitious. We

4 can get there but we have a lot of work

5 to do by January. We need regular

6 discussions and a lot of -- we need to

7 leave the fun part and get to the hard

8 part and whittle down to agree to put get

9 together to benefit our interests across

10 the agencies and states.

11 MS. CANTRAL: So, Joe, you have

12 your card up. Do you have a com --

13 anyone else want to chime in on thinking

14 about it? Let me know, otherwise I'll

15 wrap up after we hear from Joe.

16 MR. ATANGAN: The mechanical aspect

17 of this, because these deadlines I know,

18 though they not aggressive to some, when

19 I started looking at the mechanics in

20 producing essentially four documents, the

21 vision goals and objectives and actions

22 documents that have to be drafted between

23 now and January, through the RPB, you

24 know and prepare for public comment I go

25 back to would really need to start

139

1 carving out some very specific tasks for

2 very specific members of the RPB. And I

3 know that there are advocates out there.

4 You need to get the public inputs but

5 again, you see the time lines we are

6 operating under. How I would strongly

7 urge, basically giving us something to

8 chew on, now somebody sit down and draft

9 something and chew on it. Okay?

10 Ingrid is asking for a sentence or

11 so, fine, but we'll draft something, but

12 I think we need to somebody able to look

13 at that so we can start the discussion

14 and get to a smooth -- so otherwise while

15 we'll talk about what should go into the

16 document rather than here is what I have,

17 so add or subtract to it.

18 I'm getting frustrated and animated

19 here because I see time lines, but I

20 don't see a way towards those time lines.

21 Maybe it's just the serial thinker in me

22 but unless we start putting pen to paper

23 and producing these documents we are

24 going to be sitting around talking about

25 what should go into these documents and

140

1 it will be January and we'll still be

2 sitting around what should go in the

3 documents.

4 MS. SCHULTZ: I would like to see us

5 take the National Ocean Council's vision

6 statement as Greg recommended, circulate

7 it among us to make tweaks as a starting

8 point and have that as one of our topics

9 for one of our upcoming work sessions to

10 get to that ahead of time so we don't

11 need to revisit it all and also talk

12 about the next phase of the goals and of

13 the draft goals and example objectives.

14 Not all of the objectives, but that

15 really should be a larger work session of

16 all of the members, kind of at that

17 phase.

18 I didn't want -- I don't think we

19 want to go back to the work at this

20 stage, but having that working session

21 dialogue on that and it may go back to an

22 existing work group until further

23 refinement.

24 MR. ATANGAN: I'm not outlining the

25 path. I want the path to be clear to

141

1 everybody sitting around this table and

2 everybody knows what their expectations

3 are. I don't think we are there. I

4 don't think it's clear yet. I mean if

5 I'm wrong, let me know, but to me it's

6 not clear. Maybe I'm an outlay, but the

7 suspect, the path is not clear for the

8 rest of us here.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Listening to

10 discussion and facilitating the

11 properties that I have been engaged with

12 you on our team at Meridian, my

13 observation is that there is definitely

14 still things you've got to figure out

15 about who picks up the pen and does

16 certain things. You have structure at

17 work to get you to here, but there is

18 discussion about how to refine that and

19 take it on into the next phase.

20 So, some of the lack of clarity is

21 because that is still underdevelopment of

22 what that is going to look like with

23 regard to the goals, discussion. The

24 suggestion has been made. That

25 discussion has to be made among the full

142

1 RPB amongst the content and the remaining

2 might go back to the existing work group

3 for the people who are willing to

4 volunteer to help it and manage the work

5 flow and the full RPB needs to be engaged

6 in that discussion. By that discussion

7 I'm talking about what communications can

8 happen between now and January, assuming

9 that you are comfortable with that time

10 frame and target and it sounds like you

11 are.

12 So it sounds like the challenges

13 that needs to be met between now and

14 January is further discussing content,

15 substance of what you just shared, ideas

16 about regarding the goals example

17 objective, vision, all that.

18 In concert we are designing the

19 process with January as a goal for going

20 out to engage the public, engage the

21 stakeholders figuring what that process

22 is going to look like and who is going to

23 conduct it and manage it.

24 And all of that has to be done with

25 a commitment to step up and do some

143

1 active participation along, all of you as

2 members and representatives on the

3 regional planning body. Doug?

4 MR. PABST: I think step one, Greg

5 and I will talk after this about what we

6 heard and go to the smaller group and go

7 back out to the larger group. We can do

8 that by email instead of a conference

9 call in the near future provided we are

10 working, hopefully, and we -- I think

11 then we'll see where we are at that

12 point. I don't know if we can go too

13 much further.

14 MR. CAPOBIANCO: I agree and am

15 certainly game to do that. What I see

16 and what I would offer is that Doug and I

17 and the group can pick up on this on this

18 work done where we basically get the goal

19 statements and started to add some meat

20 on those bones in terms of objective and

21 I see a lot of opportunity to expand the

22 objective portions of the goals, the

23 general goals. Maybe there is word

24 tweaking, but let's really think about

25 what those objectives are and there is a

144

1 fine line over thinking and going too far

2 down the road. I fully expect the

3 objectives we think through will have

4 value added from the stakeholders and

5 there would be -- will be new objectives

6 added that makes sense and doable from

7 our respective jurisdictions and what we

8 try to do here in terms of an outcome.

9 So I think we are, you know, my

10 sense of life is we need to really

11 continue to add objectives to those goals

12 and think about them in what is that are

13 achievable and meaningful and things that

14 this group here being contribute bought

15 to making it happen and things that

16 benefit the region. I'm happy to do

17 that. If you and I can get to go,

18 assuming you have a job and report to

19 work in a few days, we can spend -- have

20 some focus time and put something back

21 out to the group for a good robust

22 discussion and then I think we are

23 talking about smaller refinements. I

24 don't think we are that far away and

25 willing to put the time in with you, Doug

145

1 and the work group to get it done.

2 MS. BORNHOLDT: It would be our

3 next one, our telephone executive session

4 will be October 8 depending upon what --

5 do you think it's possible, given what

6 you all do in the day? I assume we'll be

7 at our desks to have a couple

8 conversations then to circulate

9 something. We can at least begin that

10 conversation as a whole and at that time,

11 Joe, you are right. We tap on people.

12 This is the work of the foundation the

13 work group provided to us. This is a

14 dialogue which may pull or push these

15 work products into different directions

16 and I would also add you've included me

17 on these calendars or the -- please do

18 that and I'll make sure I clear my

19 calendar to have this discussion. Let's

20 frame it right for our own discussion.

21 That's where we are not being efficient

22 with our time and to use our time on the

23 8th for the majority of the discussion.

24 MS. CANTRAL: Yup, seem like a --

25 MR. CAPOBIANCO: I can make that

146

1 time frame. I just checked my calendar

2 and I can now. Depending on Doug's

3 availability we have some quality hours

4 together to engage the group in what Mo

5 was talking about. We can do it.

6 MR. PABST: Yeah. October I can.

7 I think it's 1:00 o'clock on the 8th. I

8 don't have it on my calendar.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Or the second

10 Tuesday.

11 MR. PABST: We can talk.

12 Definitely make that happen.

13 MS. CANTRAL: Sounds like a plan.

14 All right, so...

15 MS. CHYTALO: I just want to have

16 one comment or two to make about the

17 goals and objectives and some of the

18 actions of some of those things can be

19 constructed to get a better idea, but it

20 would be nice if it was in there to

21 construct to include some rationale as to

22 why these things are being mentioned or

23 something like that. It's part of the

24 intro to those things. At least people

25 can wrap our heads around rather than --

147

1 type of a coordinated attempt to put the

2 pieces together. That would be helpful.

3 MS. CANTRAL: Do you want to tag

4 onto what?

5 MS. COOKSEY: The base or what you

6 want to call them. I need a

7 justification I can run up the chain if

8 we can keep some in and some out.

9 MS. CANTRAL: Okay. So, very good

10 discussion. More to come. A plan for

11 taking at least the next couple of steps

12 and that is where we are going to leave

13 it for now.

14 Now we'll move to the next topic.

15 This is the most exciting part of the

16 meeting, I promise, talking about the

17 charter. The best for last.

18 We'll turn it over to Joe, as you

19 are aware, has been leading the charge to

20 develop a draft charter for your

21 consideration and he is going to walk

22 through the status of that for discussion

23 and hopefully we'll leave this discussion

24 with a clear plan how to finalize the

25 charter, finalize the charter.

148

1 MR. ATANGAN: Everybody has been

2 waiting and peruse through the charter

3 and familiarize yourself and know every

4 phrase used in there --

5 (Mr. Mach leaves the meeting.)

6 MS. CANTRAL: Let me interrupt to

7 say I know you have it memorized. You

8 need to refer to it as task 7 in your

9 binder.

10 MR. ATANGAN: I promise not to go

11 over it word for word. Our thought is

12 not to wordsmith it at this point, but

13 basically go over the thought processes

14 we sent to you and some of the discussion

15 points and issues that require RPB

16 guidance.

17 I'm sure for a lot of the

18 stakeholders, public out there, this is

19 probably like sausage making, but a

20 necessary part of this whole evolution,

21 our vision is to provide a very

22 high-level document that is streamline

23 and it's very simple. Just identify who

24 the memberships are, what the mission of

25 the RPB is and the scope of their work.

149

1 But also offer enough flexibility.

2 As you can see we have not quite

3 nailed down our goals and objective and

4 didn't want a web to charter down to the

5 goals and objective, but make it flexible

6 so if there are changes in our goals and

7 objectives we didn't have to change the

8 cart.

9 The approach that I took was

10 basically the path of least resistence or

11 so I thought. Take what's already out

12 there and copy it. So, I took the

13 northeast regional planning body's

14 charter and used that as a start. That

15 was back in June before an implementation

16 plan and its associated guide plan came

17 out.

18 So I started with the northeast

19 charter and the model charter came out.

20 So I had to essentially use the hopefully

21 the best elements out of both, combine

22 the two into the document you have in

23 front of you today.

24 The initial review, the charter was

25 conducted by a small set of the RPB and

150

1 its support group member from NOAA,

2 Department of Energy. A few of the state

3 members, they provided valuable input

4 that were incorporated into the charter

5 itself.

6 We briefed it to the RPB and we

7 received a guidance, actually briefed it

8 at the webinar and that prompted some

9 more discussion and I received additional

10 input which we again incorporated. We

11 are at that stage right now. We were

12 going for additional RPB guidance, how to

13 specify certain sections of the document,

14 ask the public, like we are note done

15 yet. You have your opportunity to an

16 email address, set the top for you to

17 provide your input for us to consider and

18 my goal, and it's rather aggressive in my

19 mind, is to recognizing that one of the

20 founding members of that RPB is --

21 would -- I like to get Tom Bigford

22 signing this thing November 2013. That

23 is what I'm targeting here. So that's

24 the agreement. So, on to the discussion

25 points:

151

1 When I first sent the charter out I

2 had a simple mission statements. That's

3 the first bullet I'm probing, space

4 planning in the region or very -- someone

5 said you can drive a Mack truck through

6 that mission statement. Since then the

7 National Ocean Council released their

8 draft model charter and included the

9 second bullet, which is coordinate with

10 stakeholders, sign specific business --

11 of public and address issues of

12 importance to the region.

13 I did the hybrid because I'm about

14 consensus here. I tried to pull the two

15 together. I took essentially to

16 implement advance marine space planning

17 by coordinating here is what we are going

18 to do and who we are going to do it with.

19 So, one of the things I want you to

20 consider is okay, item 1, 2 or 3 on the

21 menu. I recommend No. 3, but that's

22 something for you to consider and provide

23 me with the feedback.

24 If you could, next one, this may

25 prompt a little bit more discussion from

152

1 the folks, but these commitments are not

2 commitments that I, Joe Atangan came up

3 with. These are the commitments that

4 were identified within the National Ocean

5 Council implementation plan and Maryland

6 charter. I don't think I'll read every

7 single one of them, but as you can see,

8 depending how you look the it, it can be

9 real big or no commitments. It's

10 unfortunately the way it's written. We

11 are committing to participate what we

12 agreed to was participation in the

13 document of a process. We want to build

14 partnerships in or share information. We

15 want to -- we want to recognize what we

16 commit to and this is the tricky part, is

17 not enforceable and do not create

18 financial or legal obligations or affect

19 existing rights beyond those created by

20 existing statute or regulation. That's

21 the lawyer's input. But I think the

22 members need to be clear that this is --

23 this is what you are signing onto and

24 this is what you are signing your

25 agencies onto.

153

1 And what I would like to hear from

2 the members is are you okay with this?

3 Are you willing to commit your signature

4 to the charter which is on these

5 commitments and if there are any hard

6 spots, please let me know so we can

7 address them and if need be, go to the

8 National Ocean Council figure out if

9 there is any additional sticking points

10 or what is around your concerns or you

11 know, address your concerns I should say

12 instead of what is around your concerns.

13 One of the other discussion points

14 was regards to -- I'm calling it the

15 executive secretary, but it's let ship

16 triumphant at this point. Unlike the

17 northeast region we don't have a

18 designated executive secretary. This

19 appeals to the leadership positions

20 within the RPB.

21 The states have made a decision

22 that the MARCO board chair will serve as

23 the state co-lead since the tribes have

24 an ideal, a committee of one. So there

25 is only one tribe so we don't have to

154

1 worry about them changing every couple

2 years.

3 So the next question is what is the

4 term for the federal agency leads --

5 federal agency co-lead. I think MARCO is

6 established as a two-year term. The --

7 recommends two-year term, but gives

8 flexibility for consecutive term and do

9 not put a limit on those consecutive

10 terms. I can see its arguments from both

11 sides about two years is not enough and

12 level lost -- a level of consistency,

13 especially in this early foundation stage

14 and once you get up and running and this

15 becomes more routine it becomes more

16 feasible to work two-year terms. I do

17 understand that the need for now

18 possibility of a longer con second if I

19 have term in order to see things through

20 a particular in this stage but that is

21 something we as an RPB need to decide. I

22 can put down on paper what you all

23 decide. It is not -- charter and say

24 two-year terms. I need the RPB

25 consensus. The other thing we need to

155

1 consider, we need to stagger the rotation

2 in such a way we have a level of

3 continuity.

4 MS. SCHULTZ: I've been here since

5 June.

6 MR. ATANGAN: We need to work at

7 staggering the state and federal

8 leadership, so that also affords a level

9 of continuity and something we need to

10 consider on that in this whole charter

11 with regard to federal agencies'

12 responsibility. That is what's outlined

13 within the executive order and in the

14 implementation plan, provides staffing

15 and resources necessary to administer its

16 role to the extent resources allow. It

17 does not authorize or obligates members

18 to expend funds.

19 Next step in original discussions,

20 because the charter is rather general and

21 to allow the maximum flexibility we do

22 recognize that we are going to need to

23 drill down a little bit and provide some

24 level of detail and additional documents

25 that includes, you know, our operation

156

1 procedures. Some of the things we talked

2 about is kind of like our ways and means

3 how to do business. We do have some

4 level of dispute resolutions. That's

5 already included in the charter, just a

6 couple paragraphs in there.

7 There is also taken straight out of

8 the model charter, it's language

9 consistent with the NCCOS has already

10 provided us, but if there is additional

11 issues and procedures we would like to

12 implement. There may be a need for

13 additional document which is an appendix

14 to this charter we need to work on and I

15 need the help of the RPB to identify what

16 type of documents you need, do you

17 envision for appendix to this charter.

18 MR. BIGFORD: Are there templates

19 for that?

20 MR. ATANGAN: No.

21 In fact, when I showed the charter,

22 actually, when the charter was sent out

23 it went to the National Ocean Council and

24 one of the National Ocean Council staff

25 looked at it and because in the original

157

1 draft I sent out it identified some

2 appendices and some additional, you know,

3 documents that we were going to commit to

4 working on and their advice was to remove

5 it. And so because -- um -- frankly just

6 delete it. They said you don't need

7 this.

8 So, you know, it's up to us as the

9 RPB. This -- this is our document. So I

10 guess what I'm looking for is some

11 guidance. What do you need? Do you need

12 something that has to delineate, you

13 know, sand operating procedures? How we

14 are going to conduct this?

15 My preference is not to write a

16 Roberts rules of order-type of thing we

17 have to follow. I think this process

18 needs to be somewhat formal, but informal

19 that we can have a dialogue of like we

20 are having right now and have an open

21 conversation and not the rigid structure

22 or yielding to one another and doing 15

23 minutes of conversation followed by a

24 couple minutes of rebuttal since -- we

25 don't want to be that rigid in structure.

158

1 I watched some of Ted Cruz's attempt at

2 filibuster. I don't want to get to that

3 point. I guess what I'm looking for is

4 guidance from the RPB. What do you feel

5 we really need to advance to keep going?

6 Frankly, you can spend -- you can spend a

7 lot of effort coming up with standard

8 operating procedures to the point where

9 it's distracting from the overall efforts

10 from the ocean planning itself? So

11 that's where I'm at.

12 Here are the next steps: I'm

13 hoping that now that everybody has gotten

14 a copy of the charter and has seen it and

15 think are going to give it their two

16 thumbs up or like on facebook, whatever

17 it takes. We can get the comments and

18 the comments will be this can be so.

19 Comments will be minimal and I'll able to

20 consolidate everything in between the

21 government shutdown and have everything

22 completed by the 15th of October. That's

23 a couple of weeks, vet it out to the RPB.

24 Ultimately you are the ones to sign

25 this and you are the ones that are going

159

1 to have to identify what the process is

2 to get approval from the your

3 organization if you are required to. I

4 know each group will be different. My

5 desire is have you, the RPB remember,

6 RPB, your agency controls that. I've

7 seen some organizations. It's not the

8 RPB neck, but the mucky muck above.

9 That's up to you and your organization.

10 But the goal is to have all of that

11 final, smooth, ready to go by 1 October

12 so that you can run it up your chain and

13 by the 15th distribute to, you know --

14 the 1 November piece, some to run up your

15 chain, vet it through your lawyers which

16 will have this. Hopefully they can turn

17 it around, two documents. I know they

18 look to charge per word, but it's chart

19 document, by 15th, this thing for

20 significant.

21 Aggressive time line. I want to

22 get out thereof before Thanksgiving day,

23 before everything gets into the holiday

24 mood and so that's where I'm at. I'll be

25 subject to your questions.

160

1 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you Joe.

2 Joe has walked you through the

3 status of the draft and posed some

4 questions along the way, so why don't we

5 take those up in the order that he had

6 posed them starting go with the mission.

7 He had invited you to share your

8 reactions. You saw the options. He did

9 a blend which is reflected in that third

10 bullet and in the document itself. So

11 how do people feel about the mission?

12 Laura?

13 MS. McKAY: Number three.

14 MS. CANTRAL: Andy?

15 MR. ZEMBA: I'm not sure. The

16 stuff I want to talk about is exactly

17 this. Should I hold it now?

18 MS. CANTRAL: Go ahead. We may ask

19 to you mark it, but --

20 MR. ZEMBA: I want to make sure

21 the -- thank Joe for the good work this

22 is, has been documented. Very good

23 start. I appreciate that.

24 A couple things conceptually are

25 important at least for Pennsylvania.

161

1 Does make it quite clear in that purpose

2 about commitments and conversely

3 noncommitments. So that's going to be

4 important to us and we are going to need

5 the smart perspective to keep that

6 language in there. We will have to get

7 it through that internal review and have

8 other Pennsylvania lawyers take a look at

9 it.

10 The other thing right now kind of

11 struck me. I don't know if this is a big

12 deal. That introduction does not talk

13 about the National Ocean Council. It's

14 mentioned several times in the document.

15 To me it kind of starts to feel like the

16 stakeholder there is a different role for

17 them and I just again advocate for some

18 consideration for -- we were not going to

19 wordsmith today, but that conceptually is

20 for me, still not clear exactly what the

21 re --

22 MS. CANTRAL: So, let's go to

23 Gwynne.

24 MS. SCHULTZ: Mine is a minor

25 comment. We've been talking about ocean

162

1 planning. This is marine spacial thing

2 in your mindset about why the marine

3 versus the ocean.

4 MR. ATANGAN: I was told no. I --

5 big military answer. That was one of the

6 points of discussion that I had in -- I

7 started out with ocean planning. I don't

8 have any problem with ocean planning, but

9 there are folks within its Enoch that we

10 went from coast, marine -- that's

11 verboten now to ocean planning. Now its

12 fashionable term is marine plan.

13 So I did a blanket change from

14 ocean planning and part of the reason

15 I -- I may get this wrong, but my sense

16 was is the marine planing was picked by

17 the -- for a specific reason to identify

18 not open ocean, but include all of the

19 way up to the shoreline. I don't know

20 this for a fact. That's a rumor I hear.

21 But -- I could go either way.

22 MS. SCHULTZ: I'm wondering if they

23 did that in the inclusion of the Great

24 Lakes in all of their dialogue and that

25 was something we want to adopt marine

163

1 planning versus the ocean planning.

2 MR. ATANGAN: I see a lot of head

3 nods. I don't have the visibility on the

4 Great Lake stuff, but again, there was no

5 more change. I can do it in two seconds

6 now.

7 MS. CANTRAL: Let's make sure we

8 get some clarity about what kind of

9 direction to give you, but --

10 MR. PABST: I was going to weigh in

11 on the bullets on the screen, per se.

12 There is a lot of how things happen,

13 stories out there, but I'm not sure which

14 was real or not at this point.

15 Couple of points. I guess we talk

16 about identifying -- it seems the more

17 you try to add people you leave people

18 out. I don't know if this is a generic,

19 we seem to go to great lengths to

20 identify sectors. I don't know if that's

21 now we left anybody out looking

22 carefully. I don't know and secondly,

23 the word address it. I think this is

24 issues. We are doing this to identify

25 and resolve. Is it, you know, I don't

164

1 know what the right word is, address or

2 thank you for your comment. That's not

3 what we mean, but I think it be may be a

4 more proactive way to choose an address.

5 I seem to be having grammar problems all

6 day today.

7 MS. CANTRAL: Any other thoughts

8 about the mission? I'm hearing people

9 like No. 3 with some friendly amendments.

10 Taking a look at the terminology and I'm

11 also noting Andy's request to take a look

12 at the introduction to clarify the role

13 not Ocean Council with regard to marine

14 planning verse ocean planning and

15 understanding where that came from. But

16 also recognizing that this is your

17 document and you can, you know, you have

18 some discretion how you want to use the

19 terminology. And ocean planning is more

20 consistent with the other things and

21 documents and your terminology would be

22 fair and reasonable to do it that way but

23 maybe I'm stepping out of my realm.

24 MS. COOKSEY: Thanks, Joe, for this

25 great work.

165

1 I think what I'm going to ask for

2 is written somewhere. I had to ask you

3 to do anymore work. You are one of those

4 seven people that have done a tremendous

5 amount of work.

6 With that said I think we can't buy

7 in because folks around the table cannot

8 answer the question what is in it for me.

9 I think that is written in some of the

10 documents the importance of the ocean. I

11 love how Andy -- they've given us this

12 charge with zero resources. There should

13 be something in here that talks about

14 them and also why are we doing it. Why

15 is the ocean so important to us.

16 MS. CANTRAL: That is your comment?

17 So, if there is nothing else on the

18 mission we still have several elements to

19 go through and I'm noting the time which

20 is when we transition the public comment

21 and I'll come back to that this and put a

22 pause on this now and come back and take

23 up Joe's other question. There is a

24 couple other details in the document you

25 didn't refer to, but need some discussion

166

1 about to ensure you take care of details.

2 When you do go through the time line you

3 are ready to finalize in the manner you

4 are suggesting. So, let's transition now

5 to public part.

6 We have seven folks who have signed

7 up to offer public comment and I will

8 tell you the order we are going to hear

9 from people and remind you as we go along

10 so you know when you are up. Ali Chase,

11 Matt Gove, Margo Pelligrini, Frank

12 Greenfield, Cindy Zipf, Ron Rapp and

13 Barbara Hudson.

14 MS. CHASE: (ALI CHASE)

15 Thank you all for all of the work

16 you've done and for taking into

17 consideration a number of the comments

18 that were made yesterday. So I was

19 saying thank you for taking into

20 consideration the comments that were made

21 yesterday and trying to take it back last

22 night and hold things together.

23 I think you know we are getting

24 closer to a lot of the goals. I really

25 appreciate it that the health of the

167

1 ecosystem, that is important and I'm glad

2 to see that's part of it. I think that

3 the NRDC and a lot of groups wanted to go

4 through them and think about them and I

5 appreciate the discussion that you had

6 very -- again recreational accesses for

7 some sort of -- to engage this meaningful

8 public input in.

9 This is also important so these are

10 things that we'll be looking at in terms

11 of the vision. My first glance there is

12 a lot in there that is very strong and I

13 also, you know, appreciate going back to

14 the national policy statement itself to

15 look at the text that was used there and

16 to put it into context. I wouldn't get

17 too hung up having it one sentence or two

18 sentence thing. That is important in

19 that part of that visions to explain what

20 you are coming together to do. If you

21 are coming to together to do this plan

22 that is really the whole of the RPB, your

23 outcome and that's important to state up

24 front so people have a context.

25 Another thing, just thinking about

168

1 the time line and I appreciated the

2 discussion that you had and sort of

3 thinking how is that going to get done

4 and can we think about that and I heard

5 what you are saying from November to

6 December. Its tough to motivate people,

7 but I think that if it is at all possible

8 to try to get another round out to the

9 public in October and even if you are not

10 able to have some of that public reach,

11 you need to have around the goals. This

12 is going to set your work. At least it's

13 out there and the public can start

14 thinking about it and discussing it and

15 maybe just leave it out in the public for

16 longer. Instead of going out in January,

17 try to maybe go out in October and close

18 it up at the end of January and see where

19 you are.

20 I think that our groups have given

21 feedback about some of the outreach

22 opportunities we would recommend and I,

23 following up on those is important and

24 I -- this one other thing is key is also

25 committing to try to meet quarterly. And

169

1 I hear the concerns that you have about

2 funding and how to get there, but I think

3 that you do have a lot of work on your

4 plate and one way to get things done is

5 to set a deadline and try to stick to it

6 and I think having those meetings is

7 going to encourage you to get that

8 feedback in to keep this moving along and

9 stakeholders engaged in the process.

10 Just one other quick thing, I'm

11 running out of time. The vision

12 statement, there is one piece I think is

13 important and that's not quite reflected.

14 It says stakeholders are engaged in

15 management decision that affect their

16 lives and livelihoods. Many of us here

17 in the room recommended stakeholders, but

18 stakeholders in the public should be

19 engaged there. There is a lot of open

20 land, but not one and the same. It's

21 important. I think that we need to

22 include that management decisions are not

23 affecting our lives, my son, his kids.

24 Hopefully some point down the line that

25 is something that needs to come and it's

170

1 so why it's -- and why we have to try to

2 move on this.

3 MS. CANTRAL: Matt Gove.

4 MR. GOVE: (MATT GOVE)

5 Matt Gove from Surf Riders. Thanks

6 for working on the goals. We've made

7 some progress but do feel I got written

8 out of the goals as right now. So maybe

9 like Gwynne was saying at a specific --

10 one good access. I'm not sure of the

11 jobs, economic opportunities, maybe there

12 is a way to rephrase it. I didn't see

13 Surf Riders in there anymore.

14 I was also confused about perhaps

15 what Ali was saying would sell out about

16 wind, when to go back to stakeholders

17 with documents and outreach as proposed

18 January stakeholder outreaches. That

19 outreach with RPB and all of the members

20 there to listen or a separate thing just

21 a few people go out. I couldn't tell

22 what that was. I need clarification on

23 that. Everyone should be here to hear

24 and get a good sense of comments that

25 come up at those outreach meetings.

171

1 And just a little thing about ocean

2 restoration. I think we do ocean

3 restoration, oyster fisheries. You could

4 call restoration in the -- so maybe

5 not -- perhaps, but we do ocean

6 restoration. That's a pet peeve.

7 Thanks.

8 MS. PELLIGRINO: (MARGO PELLIGRINO)

9 Margo Pelligrino. It's really

10 awesome to be a member of the public and

11 to be able to comment here and I really

12 appreciate it.

13 As I said, most of my expertise is

14 just anecdotal and a based on my paddling

15 journeys and stakeholders and the most of

16 this country, at least the mainland. And

17 kind of finding onto Matt's comment about

18 ocean restoration. Be we know how

19 difficult it is, how lots of times when

20 we try to restore areas it's just a big

21 tremendous waste of money. So of course

22 the best way to ensure against wasting

23 money and time is to not break it in the

24 first place.

25 Looking at all of this in the

172

1 shorter and mission and goals, I'm not --

2 I'm foggy on resiliency and what you mean

3 is that just beach replenishment? It's

4 tidal waterways? New Jersey really is

5 actually a peninsula that, and you know,

6 so that's really a murky thing that needs

7 clarification when you talk about

8 resiliency exactly what do you mean?

9 I don't -- when you look at the

10 past studies by Pew on the ocean and the

11 U.S. Commission on ocean policy they talk

12 about the ocean being in a state of

13 crisis. I don't personally -- don't see.

14 Maybe I'm missing it the mission and

15 goals are not necessarily reflective

16 the -- of the crisis that we are

17 currently in. I don't see any

18 ecosystem-based management. I don't see

19 the term. I see yes, talking about

20 scientists and you know dignitaries, but

21 I don't see where this is coming together

22 to make sure we don't destroy what we

23 have left.

24 So I -- most I see the word

25 ecosystem based somewhere in there. I

173

1 wish I could see the mission can be about

2 a reflective of the fundings of the U.S.

3 Commission and Pew report on the ocean

4 because this isn't just about dividing up

5 the pieces of the pie. This is making

6 sure that we do the right thing in order

7 to keep the whole thing from remaining in

8 crisis state. Thank you.

9 MR. GREENFIELD: (BRENT GREENFIELD)

10 Brent Greenfield with National

11 Ocean Policy Coalition. I just have some

12 comments regarding operational

13 considerations related to the Regional

14 Ocean Planning time line and associated

15 products and the model RPB charter.

16 As stated yesterday, by proceeding

17 the absence of direct commercial and

18 recreational representation on the RPB or

19 at least an opportunity for formal

20 engagement through a Stakeholder Advisory

21 Committee, even in discussions about

22 things like potential goals, timelines

23 and actions the Mid-Atlantic regional

24 ocean planning process is already

25 threatening to inadequately reflect the

174

1 input and perspectives of the regions

2 most significant existing and future

3 potential economic contributors and

4 result in unintended and adverse

5 consequences.

6 Like the discussion about goals and

7 geographic focus, stakeholder engagement

8 and data and information, the discussion

9 about timelines and associated products

10 would benefit tremendously from this type

11 of formal engagement and such mechanisms

12 should be in place before these

13 discussions continue.

14 With that as context, it is also

15 important to note that existing and

16 future potential users of ocean and

17 coastal resources in the Mid-Atlantic

18 already must navigate a wide array of

19 state and federal programs to carry out

20 their existing or proposed activities.

21 At the same time, they are confronting

22 challenging economic circumstances that

23 also demand their constant attention,

24 time and resources.

25 Timelines and decisions related to

175

1 goals, objectives and actions must

2 account for these circumstances and be

3 based on the availability and application

4 of sound science, data and information.

5 In addition, as stated previously,

6 if commercial and recreational interests

7 are not directly represented on the RPB

8 and circumstances are such that the RPB

9 lacks the capacity to establish a formal

10 stakeholder advisory committee, then the

11 RPB seemingly lacks the ability and

12 should not endeavor to undertake the

13 development of a formal regional ocean

14 plan or other products whose use could

15 result in impacts to commercial and

16 recreational interests and the jobs and

17 communities that they support or seek to

18 support.

19 Any timeline for Mid-Atlantic

20 regional ocean planning must take this

21 into account as well as ensure that the

22 public at large and all groups have

23 adequate time and opportunity to review

24 and provide input on RPB materials in

25 advance of meetings and actions.

176

1 Timelines must be developed based

2 on the time that is needed to identify,

3 consider and implement goals and any

4 related actions that are ultimately

5 agreed upon following significant user

6 group and public engagement efforts.

7 Practical and achievable timelines cannot

8 be ascertained before such engagement has

9 taken place and such goals and related

10 actions have been identified.

11 As to the draft model charter, in

12 addition to providing for direct

13 commercial and recreational sector

14 membership, local officials should also

15 be provided with opportunities to serve

16 directly on the RPB. With regard to

17 commercial and recreational interests at

18 minimum the charter should provide for

19 formal and direct engagement through a

20 Federal Advisory Committee.

21 The charter should also make clear

22 that any decision not to address a

23 particular use in the region is not an

24 indication of opposition to such use

25 occurring in the region and that such a

177

1 decision is not to be used or interpreted

2 by any agency in a manner that would in

3 any way restrict or prohibit such use

4 from being authorized to take place in

5 the region.

6 Other areas that the draft charter

7 needs to address include the following:

8 The terms and processes under which

9 funding would be accepted by outside

10 groups. How exactly marine planning

11 would be carried out consistent with and

12 under the authority of existing statues,

13 regulations and authorized programs and

14 which activities, regulations, statutes

15 and programs are implicated and how

16 agencies would adhere to the plan and or

17 other RPB products.

18 Thank you.

19 MS. CANTRAL: Cindy Zipf.

20 MS. ZIPF: (CINDY ZIPF)

21 Thanks everybody for sticking to it

22 and staying for the whole day. It's been

23 a long couple days, but I -- we think we

24 have made progress and see a great deal

25 of progress incorporating. I have a

178

1 couple thoughts to share/

2 Going back to the goals very

3 briefly, I think they are too limited. I

4 are what Ali just said about

5 consideration of -- for us to go back and

6 consider them. We had recommended in the

7 letter to you -- to adopt goals that were

8 established for the northeast region

9 which would not be exclusive. We would

10 have additional goals, but those were a

11 good starting point.

12 I wanted to reflect a little bit

13 one more time on the importance of the

14 data and what data you use. I notice on

15 one of the MARCO sheets it says fisheries

16 were valued at $300 million and that is

17 really low when it comes down to trade

18 office. Which kinds of trees are we

19 going to support or not support. For the

20 economics are going to be --

21 unfortunately most of the focus, so just

22 numbers for New Jersey commercial fishing

23 was $6.6 billion in sales with a B. It

24 provides $2.4 billion in growth, state

25 product and 44,000 jobs. That's just the

179

1 commercial and recreational. It was 1.7

2 billion in sales and 1.71 million in

3 gross New Jersey product. I think those

4 numbers need to be told and need to be

5 emphasized and is critical.

6 As to the charter, my view the

7 charter is the most important document I

8 was sticking it out to the end. That's

9 the promise you are making to one another

10 and to us. In that context I would

11 agree, Doug, I'm agreeing with you in the

12 mission statement to not just address the

13 issues, but to resolve that the mission

14 is to resolve the issues. That's an

15 important distinction so our voices are

16 considered and not passed over.

17 It's also important to be clear

18 about what the different roles of all of

19 the partners you have are. MARCO, that's

20 an extremely important partnership for

21 this committee. You are depending on

22 them for the data in part or in large

23 part, depending on them for their public

24 involvement role. Again, those are

25 really important and I think expectations

180

1 and accountability needs to be clarified

2 as to how far MARCO plays.

3 I think the public's role has to be

4 identified and clarified out of respect

5 to us. What is its agreement the promise

6 that we may have between one another,

7 between our participation in this. How

8 are you going to conduct the meetings of

9 the liaison if that's the read you take.

10 Expectations and accountabilities, and

11 again, I would, you know, really

12 emphasize the term full public

13 involvement. That's are the words I look

14 at, meaningful public involvement done

15 not just public comment and mindful

16 again. How just -- I can't over

17 emphasize data.

18 Now, some things I understand, Joe,

19 you've been putting time in your

20 timetable. You want everybody committed

21 to it. If you have placeholders where

22 you describe how it is liaisons work,

23 however you are going to make up that

24 MARCO you may not have all of these

25 things committed to, but placeholders in

181

1 there so we know those will be addressed

2 and have some criteria adopted.

3 On page 6, the role of the

4 colleagues is extraordinary. I want to

5 emphasize that it says in consultation

6 with the rest of the RPB, the colleagues

7 may consider and decide so the colleagues

8 are the deciders, if you will. Many of

9 these roles are and many of these whole

10 operations. So I think that's an extreme

11 amount of responsibility and I'm not sure

12 there is -- not clear what -- how we the

13 public participate in that

14 decision-making. This is a sorts of a

15 meat and potatoes how the system will be

16 returned. I would like to be consulted

17 on that as well.

18 That's just a point of -- I would

19 like for clarification of the term

20 general consensus is I think somewhat

21 clear here, but it wouldn't hurt to

22 define what general consensus means. One

23 person says no there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

24 How you feel about that decision and also

25 all sorts of processes for condition

182

1 census. I would like more clarification

2 on that.

3 How if at all you deal with public

4 on the liquified natural gas proposed off

5 our coast. You had over 25,000

6 submissions of comments on the document.

7 Over 25,000 comments, only 19 were in

8 favor of the application. So there is a

9 clear vote there and you know, I'm not

10 sure how the public voice will be

11 addressed and if you are doing something

12 or the plan incorporates something

13 profoundly not in the public -- which the

14 public opposes, how will you address

15 that.

16 That covers my comments. I'm sure

17 I'm way over the -- my time, but you

18 know, that's in our view the charter will

19 be the document that we look at to

20 determine how or whether or in what way

21 passive aggressive -- passive aggressive

22 we participated in this process. It's a

23 very important document to us. I

24 appreciate your initial work and

25 hopefully some of these issues can be

183

1 clarified.

2 MS. CANTRAL: Ron Rapp you are

3 next.

4 MR. RAPP: (RON RAPP)

5 I want to come back to the summary

6 of cables as I introduced yesterday. By

7 the way, my comments will be on behalf of

8 the International Cable Protection

9 Committee, a member organization of about

10 140 international members and North

11 America and Summary Cable Association of

12 North American members group.

13 We discussed this yesterday and I

14 still have it seen in our opinion enough

15 mention of cables, you know point one

16 being that in the vision statement. I

17 think there is talk of a local economy

18 and ocean economy, but I think one,

19 regardless of cables, talking shipping

20 lanes or recreation, mention of

21 international global economy is

22 important. These transit lanes of course

23 are enablers for international trade as

24 our submarine communication cable and

25 that's important to highlight.

184

1 In the area of goals if we are

2 going to get down to the details, talking

3 about militaries continuing ranges and

4 recreation and sand mining, we certainly

5 want to include summary and cables in

6 that group. It does not fit in any other

7 general area and you know, I'll say this

8 is not just another special interest, you

9 know, another special interest talking

10 this is important. We work a lot with

11 the U.S. Convention Law. The sea, in our

12 international dealings, even though

13 United States is not a signatory, the

14 United States does abide by many of the

15 provisions and discussions with some of

16 the drafters. They spend a lot of time

17 how to treat and consider

18 telecommunications cables around the

19 world. So they are explicitly named in

20 class in many of the provisions I

21 asked -- ask that this group consider

22 that and possibly some explicit mention.

23 Submarine cables in the set of objectives

24 there for 150 years. So it's not a new

25 phenomenon.

185

1 That's the gist of my comments and

2 I'll be happy to discuss anything

3 afterwards.

4 Thank you.

5 MS. CANTRAL: Barbara Hudson, and

6 Sarah Chase, you'll be after Barbara.

7 MS. HUDSON: (BARBARA HUDSON)

8 Why do we need ocean planning?

9 What are we talking about? Who are the

10 stakeholders?

11 From my point of view, would be

12 about bringing a stressed out and dying

13 ocean. From others it's about probably

14 organizing offshore drilling, liquid

15 natural gas and other commercial uses.

16 So why do I define it? It cannot be both

17 because things you talk about inside more

18 commercial -- is the same thing we are

19 dealing with our stressed out ocean.

20 So I think I'm a citizen. I lived

21 here all my life and I'm very concerned

22 and it was in the seventies when we had

23 offshore drilling and -- all of

24 organizers fought that firstly and they

25 kept it from happening. I'm not so sure

186

1 what's happening now.

2 MS. CHASE: (SARAH CHASE)

3 Thanks to all of you. We are

4 excited to be seated at the meeting of

5 the RPB and we appreciate all of your

6 time and work. It's an extremely

7 important exercise we believe.

8 I would like to supplement Ali

9 Chase's comments. Goals, vision, time

10 line. I would like to raise comments

11 regarding the draft charter. We'll be

12 supplementing these comments in written

13 comments.

14 In the mission and scope I think we

15 would like to see mention of the regional

16 system as well as the capacity assessment

17 and the reference to work plan I think is

18 fine here, but it raised a question in

19 terms of the earlier discussion of the

20 time line. Not clear to me what's

21 envisioned to be in the work plan.

22 See, I think if there would be some

23 elaboration, it does not have to be in

24 the charter, but at some point all are

25 thinking what the work plan would contain

187

1 that would be level in understanding you

2 envisioning it, taking until next summer

3 or next September to come up with a draft

4 which is a concern to us in terms of time

5 line.

6 I would like to speak to page five

7 member commitments. A few points there.

8 We would like to see a commitment to

9 develop a plan, not just to participate

10 in the development of a process in the

11 work plan, et cetera, but a commitment to

12 develop a regional ocean plan.

13 We would also like to see where

14 there is reference to incorporation of

15 the ocean policy goals, objectives,

16 principles into the planning process have

17 referenced not only to the handbook, but

18 the executive order and task force and

19 implementation plan, so not a limitation

20 to the handbook.

21 And one real concern that I would

22 like to raise is that the executive order

23 requires that the federal departments of

24 agencies participate in the development

25 of and in the planning process to the

188

1 full extent consistent with applicable

2 law and the language in the draft

3 charter. Only talks about the -- to the

4 extent -- I know those words matter. I

5 think it's important. I realize the

6 obligations on the state partners and

7 travel partners may be different. This

8 charter should be consistent with what

9 the requirements are in the executive

10 order vis-a-vis the departments and

11 agencies.

12 So, thank you very much for this

13 opportunity and good luck as you proceed.

14 MR. JOHANSON: (ERIC JOHANSON)

15 Eric again from the morning.

16 I want to speak about a few things.

17 I'm pleased the vision statement in

18 regard to the stakeholders engaging the

19 management decisions affecting their

20 lives and livelihoods. I would like to

21 add into speaking about what they were

22 saying about the economic impact not only

23 to the stakeholders, but those people

24 that depend on those stakeholders as

25 well. That's an important guide that

189

1 should be put inside in regard to today.

2 Just now, this last one, mission.

3 It's important and I'm very happy you are

4 working on a mission statement now. That

5 is an important part of what you are

6 going to be doing and I think it needs a

7 bit more time before you can really nail

8 it down. I appreciate Doug's comment

9 changing one word. One word can make a

10 huge statement in a mission statement.

11 It would be best to think about it more

12 before you go forward and make sure it is

13 a mission statement you can live with.

14 You are speaking about the bylaws

15 and you don't know if you want to have

16 that -- I look in this room. There is a

17 lot of intelligent people in this room.

18 However, if you don't have a bylaw to run

19 by, you are going to be here next month

20 talking about the same thing. Perhaps

21 you do need to consider some sort of

22 bylaws and break the group up into sub

23 committees. They can report back some

24 progress that we can get forward on this

25 I would highly recommend that.

190

1 I'm the member of a committee, 33

2 of them, one of task statements. I

3 currently share on infrastructure,

4 navigation. This could be something I

5 would work with this committee with

6 exclusively not in shore, but offshore

7 infrastructure we speak about here.

8 There are a lot more people we can work

9 into this. The stakeholders should be

10 identified and one of the questions I had

11 why is the ICC, not on this sub -- this

12 group international -- interstate

13 commerce committee.

14 Since this is going to impact

15 interstate commercial, wouldn't that be

16 someone also on this committee? I know

17 MARCO is on here and Coast Guard, but a

18 thought, maybe I'm off on this one, and

19 also I frankly suggest the revised goals

20 include the efficient and safe port

21 action test objectives. That's it.

22 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you to all of

23 you who provided public comment. We are

24 going to take a break now, 15-minute

25 break and come back at 3:30, resume the

191

1 discussion about the charter.

2 Several questions that Joe posed

3 reflect thinking about what you heard

4 from several of commentators regarding

5 the charter and then we are going to see

6 what other business needs to be done and

7 summarize and wrap up. Take a break and

8 be back at 3:30.

9 (Recess.)

10 (David Noble left the

11 meeting.)

12 MS. CANTRAL: We are going to try

13 to get started. We are in the home

14 stretch here. So I think we want to come

15 back to the discussion about the charter

16 and finish that up. We had some

17 discussion if you recall, Joe mentioned

18 proposed several questions or discussion

19 points he identified in working through

20 the draft charter and assessing all of

21 the input and comments you have provided.

22 We talked about the mission. There were

23 some suggestions about that. We already

24 summarized we want to use this session

25 right now to talk to some of the points

192

1 he had said and reflect and have

2 discussion about any of the documents

3 that we heard about the charter, about

4 the public comment and folks wanted to do

5 that.

6 Let me just remind you what else we

7 have to discuss related to the charter,

8 taking a look at the commitment and how

9 that is articulated in the charter. The

10 executive secretariat and the role of

11 that leadership, the appendices and what

12 is flagged there to be a potential, at

13 least couple of appendices we had

14 suggestions for other things that could

15 be added to that list. And then, you

16 know, anything else that you flag in your

17 review of the charter that you want to

18 raise.

19 So, why don't we take those up in

20 order starting with the commitments as

21 articulated in the charter and summarized

22 in the slide that's up.

23 MR. ATANGAN: Where we were at in

24 the discussion point was I was looking

25 for the members to essentially come in on

193

1 whether I guess your level of comfort

2 with regard to the commitments that have

3 been outlined here. Again, these are

4 based -- this is what you are going to

5 have to go to your individual

6 organizations with and say this is what

7 we are signing on to do and what we are

8 committed to do.

9 MS. CANTRAL: John, do you have a

10 document?

11 On the RPB member commitments the

12 first one was fulfill the role

13 representing the agency governed on the

14 previous page under federal members. It

15 lists departments of executive branch.

16 So, I believe we are supposed to be

17 representing our departments and not

18 necessarily our agencies, which is a big

19 deal.

20 MR. ATANGAN: That's an excellent

21 point.

22 MR. WALTERS: We've tried to

23 clarify it, whether I'm representing the

24 Coast Guard or Department of Homeland

25 Security I have to try to clarify it

194

1 again. But from conversations with Tom,

2 and he mentioned yesterday he was

3 representing the Department of Commerce

4 and just for clarity.

5 MR. ATANGAN: That's actually --

6 thank you for flagging this. That is a

7 good catch. Any further discussions on

8 this? What I need to know at this point

9 is any hard spots. Let me know we'll go

10 ahead and move on.

11 With regard to the executive

12 secretariat, I mentioned the terms of the

13 co-leads and issue of consecutive terms

14 and standard rotation we need to take --

15 need for you to give some thought to that

16 and provide me some input and how we can

17 address that. The way it's addressed

18 they have two-year terms, but they also

19 specify it does not preclude consecutive

20 terms.

21 In the previous versions of the

22 charter I included that specific

23 language, but there were some concerns

24 expressed about, you know, the stagnant,

25 you know, you get stale after multiple

195

1 consecutive terms. They wanted to

2 preclude that. We should keep the

3 flexibility there to give us some options

4 and maybe we revise it downstream.

5 MS. CANTRAL: Tom and Mo?

6 MR. BIGFORD: Several independently

7 elected, so if when Mo leaves we get a

8 federal co-lead or could we do it when

9 she does not leave, but another agency

10 was to change and someone comes aboard

11 they become co-lead. I'm trying to

12 figure out the dynamics how this will all

13 be if and when we get to a point we have

14 to -- elected from existing or elected

15 from new people when they come on board.

16 I don't understand the mechanics of that.

17 MR. ATANGAN: I think the

18 independently-elected person really

19 applied more to the states as far as

20 who -- and the individual tribe, I don't

21 know they had this in mind when they

22 talked about electing co-leads, but

23 that's something we need to get

24 clarification from the staff on that.

25 They designated an initial federal --

196

1 MR. BIGFORD: Yes.

2 MR. ATANGAN: And that transition

3 from the federal lead to the next federal

4 lead is unclear.

5 MS. CANTRAL: Right.

6 MR. PABST: Designated or elected

7 or by caveat it was D.O.I. So it was

8 not -- it was not elected.

9 MS. CANTRAL: To point out language

10 in the actual draft on the bottom, page 5

11 says federal state tribal RPB members

12 will select their representative co-leads

13 independently. You summarized the

14 bullet, you know, to be independently

15 elected.

16 I think an interpretation is each

17 of the sectors, governmental sectors

18 selects their co-lead to, you know, be,

19 you know, for their sector. The process

20 of how that is -- how that happens may

21 differ. In your region definitely

22 differs. You have one tribe, so --

23 MR. ATANGAN: The issue is not the

24 tribe or state. The straight answer

25 transition plan is established. They

197

1 have done through MARCO and have a set

2 rotation. This is the same issue that

3 every RPB is going to run across. There

4 was an initial -- you are the federal

5 co-lead and they put this language in

6 there. Well, you are going to elect the

7 next one, but, you know, so the

8 transition of the federal co-lead piece

9 is unclear.

10 I don't know at this point where we

11 have -- what kind of latitude we have to

12 one, do we -- do we really have the

13 latitude to elect the next federal

14 co-lead or is up to the next one to

15 approve and who the next federal co-lead

16 is?

17 MR. BIGFORD: Right.

18 MS. BORNHOLDT: No. You got stuck

19 with me in the first round. No matter

20 how long the term is, then the feds get

21 together and select the next, you know,

22 department. To go back to John's point

23 to be able to be the representative. I

24 may still be sitting on the RPB. My term

25 closes and I'll happily help designate

198

1 the next federal co-lead. That's how it

2 goes. We have that latitude I need to go

3 back and address with Chris Corbo and

4 John Andre and check. That's my

5 understanding.

6 MS. CANTRAL: Tom and John want to

7 jump.

8 MR. BIGFORD: The we is us. The we

9 is not our federal agencies with the --

10 MS. BORNHOLDT: No.

11 MR. BIGFORD: Maybe before elected

12 or selected, I think that might give us

13 more flexibility.

14 MS. CANTRAL: It's in the draft.

15 MS. BORNHOLDT: I would strongly

16 encourage we stagger. We were lucky

17 that -- Sarah was lucky to that point and

18 it was continuity and Gwynne stepped up

19 and transitioned correctly. We should

20 consider how we stagger that appointment.

21 That's important for continuity and also

22 if Roddy and Sal were here they would say

23 the same thing. That's -- but as a but,

24 that's a newly-recognized tribe. They

25 are trying to get their feet under them

199

1 and they would feel under them as well

2 having all of a sudden two legs of the

3 three-legged stool and help with the

4 transition situation and to the extent we

5 can stagger, then it would be a good

6 idea.

7 MR. WALTERS: This addresses it but

8 not the federal RPB members.

9 Are they in this for life?

10 MR. PABST: Executive orders don't

11 go away.

12 MS. BORNHOLDT: They do.

13 MR. BIGFORD: Sometimes.

14 MR. WALTERS: That was my question.

15 MR. ATANGAN: Unlike the Cardinals,

16 most of us are just about as gray as some

17 of those guys, but that's up to your

18 individual department. I'll see if I can

19 clarify by the federal membership. The

20 way it's written is that they are going

21 to identify representatives to serve that

22 agency. So my sense is that, you know,

23 we are going to leave that up to each

24 department to identify the path by which

25 they are designated. I don't want to get

200

1 into the business of how they are going

2 to select their representative. I think

3 that's up to that -- that's an internal

4 decision.

5 MR. WALTERS: In this organization,

6 the Coast Guard is, by position, some --

7 whomever is in my position is on this

8 board. A couple years you get somebody

9 else.

10 MR. ATANGAN: That's a -- that's

11 unique to your individual agency and

12 example, the other example that we have

13 is what's already transpired with D.O.D.

14 in the northeast in that the previous

15 representative for the D.O.D., the

16 northeast was Cheryl Barnett in David

17 Noble's office. When she moved on the

18 decision was made within D.O.D. to

19 designate Chris Thompson, who is already

20 up there and locally available.

21 So, he is now -- it didn't -- it

22 was if the individual, they switched

23 organizations based on what the D.O.D.

24 required. That latitude needs to remain

25 within the individual department.

201

1 MS. CANTRAL: What else do you need

2 regarding the executive secretary?

3 MR. BIGFORD: Just to let Dave --

4 serious thought to this over the last few

5 months as it be -- Susan and I have given

6 a lot of thought to it. The transfer

7 process is underway. It's not the person

8 in my position, it could be somebody

9 else, but we would be glad to share to --

10 but it might help.

11 MR. ATANGAN: I'm clear on this

12 piece. So we will make it

13 independently-elected, two-year term with

14 the option for consecutive term.

15 Are we -- I guess we have to decide

16 here, but provide me the inputs and the

17 language you would like me to include in

18 that thing and I'll include language that

19 says we'll stagger the rotation to

20 facilitate continuity. Moving on.

21 The attendees to the charter

22 operation procedures, I think we heard

23 from, certainly from the comments, that

24 there is some -- we need to consider the

25 fact we do need to have some established

202

1 procedures to codify. The

2 decision-making and dispute resolution is

3 identified perhaps in -- look at how

4 adequate it is within its current form.

5 If there is a level of specificity or

6 procedures we need to employ, then please

7 send me your inputs regarding making an

8 additional appendix with regard to

9 dispute resolution and decision-making

10 and dispute resolution.

11 One of the things highlighted was

12 make -- identifying the relationship and

13 clarifying the MARCO and RPB

14 relationship. That's probably if there

15 is a candidate or appendix that may be

16 worth pursuing in there since we are

17 relying on them for the portal and now

18 the stakeholder liaison position and

19 things like that. May be worth extending

20 time and come up with an additional --

21 MARCO and RPB relationship.

22 MR. PABST: Not directly related to

23 this, that -- another topic I think is

24 right for operations and procedure. Who

25 are the RPB members? If they can't sit

203

1 at the table, who sits at the table? So

2 the delegations for each federal agency,

3 we have some people in the state, but are

4 not the official RPB member or we have to

5 make sure our procedures accommodate that

6 and we can proceed and we can't be

7 challenged because of some breach in

8 protocol that does not exist.

9 MS. SCHULTZ: I don't know if it's

10 in here, but I would like to see a

11 statement to the effect that we can add

12 additional to-be-determined appendices in

13 the future. Those things might come in

14 that we are not aware of at that time.

15 MR. ATANGAN: I think I have -- I

16 think I -- let me -- merit of the modify

17 charter, develop --

18 That's a written amendment piece.

19 I hear you. I hear you. There was a

20 section in here, we were going to

21 identify appendices. We were going to

22 include you, don't need this, it may be

23 to revise it. That, in general terms,

24 title, this -- it -- we can make general

25 statements that says, hey, we'll provide

204

1 appendices that define the following.

2 MS. CANTRAL: Any other questions

3 you have to get people weighed in on?

4 MR. ATANGAN: I don't think I'm

5 lacking in guidance at this point.

6 MR. RAMOS: I would add, maybe we

7 don't want to specifically call out

8 certain organizations, not say anything,

9 not that they are doing any bad, then we

10 are -- to it from then on forward. Allow

11 those amendments to be made if we so

12 choose to make those amendments which

13 allow us to dissolve that relationship

14 without having to revisit the entire

15 charter.

16 MR. ATANGAN: Actually, that

17 rationale is a reason why there is very

18 few sitings of MARCO specific in the

19 document as written. I think this is one

20 section in which MARCO actually appears

21 in and it's in the role of the executive

22 secretariat specifically says we are

23 going to communicate -- coordinate on a

24 tactical established partnerships with

25 existing regional such as --

205

1 So, you know, that was my wind of

2 lucy-goosy way of giving flexibility and

3 understand MARCO is a partner in this

4 effort. I'm happy to take your answer

5 and input which way you want to proceed.

6 It's only pen and paper.

7 MS. SCHULTZ: What I would like to

8 do is bring this issue back off to MARCO

9 management board to understand if are

10 there are things going to be doing for

11 the RPB where the acknowledgment of the

12 RPB is important to engaging people to

13 soliciting funds and where we see that it

14 would be good for that to be

15 acknowledged.

16 So, I want to go with the board so

17 I can understand should it be an

18 appendices in the charter? Meeting

19 minutes from these meetings? Yes, we

20 endure it. I don't honestly know how

21 formal or informal it should be, but

22 ultimately getting the job done, what can

23 help MARCO get work done with the RPB. I

24 want to figure that out.

25 MS. CANTRAL: That would be the way

206

1 to get clarity on that particular point.

2 John, you have a comment?

3 MR. WALTERS: Back to the agency

4 department issue on the bottom of page 6.

5 Marine planning is a benefit guide agency

6 slash department decision making and

7 departments will adhere to the plan.

8 That implies advance of the plan up

9 to the department level. Then the

10 departments would have to issue some sort

11 of guidance throughout --

12 MR. ATANGAN: Yes.

13 MR. WALTERS: -- requiring the

14 agencies to comply with.

15 MR. ATANGAN: The reason that

16 language was written that way is you have

17 departments that are represented by

18 specific agencies. Yet, within those

19 departments like, you know, you have --

20 MS. BORNHOLDT: And then what's the

21 other --

22 MS. CANTRAL: Mark services.

23 MR. ATANGAN: Whatever BOEM agrees

24 to they are agreeing within the context

25 of the RPB. They are agreeing for the

207

1 department and I think what was

2 envisioned was that the department would

3 then use that as policy throughout the

4 department for the Park Services and

5 other entities within that document to

6 also comply with.

7 MR. WALTERS: We should clarify

8 that through the NCCOS or our own chain

9 of command the only pure agency that's

10 here is E.P.A. That falls under no

11 department.

12 MR. ATANGAN: I'm happy to say the

13 department's an agency.

14 MS. BORNHOLDT: For me I'm one. It

15 will -- we have few partners to

16 coordinate and they are basically telling

17 me I'll hopefully exercise common sense.

18 But that's -- probably more flexibility.

19 If we end up doing that it has

20 implications of NOAA with its

21 relationship with the Department of

22 Commerce.

23 Talking about a fish out of water,

24 in my federal career the struggle NOAA

25 has nothing -- these are my mandates and

208

1 getting advise that does not necessarily

2 advise I would hope we have interpreted.

3 So if you need to get clearance up to

4 D.H.S., but maybe perhaps we allow the

5 rest of us to be able to navigate that in

6 the bay, we always do using the culture.

7 I would caution by getting perhaps -- I

8 don't want to say exact, this is an

9 exact, but let's not be too constrained

10 by that intent there.

11 MR. ATANGAN: We are trying to

12 parse out is what is the definition of an

13 agency, you know. I think we are

14 wrapping around the fact that just

15 because you have an agency in your title

16 does not make you the only agency. The

17 use of agency in this context includes

18 NOAA and the various organizations, the

19 subsets of the department.

20 MS. CANTRAL: What I'm hearing

21 about this discussion, leaving some

22 opportunity for some flexibility to

23 interpret in what is to accommodate

24 the -- from the departments and agencies

25 they are in are not independent agencies.

209

1 MS. CHYTALO: Just a few little

2 things. With respect to the Mid-Atlantic

3 fishery management council member, as far

4 as I know I'm not aware of any tribal or

5 local government officials on that

6 council. So that would not be the draw

7 area. It would be more since only

8 government officials can be on this we

9 would be drawn from the federal, state

10 members, the other members of --

11 sometimes other parties and like that.

12 So I'm not aware of any -- so this is --

13 just a clarification. They don't exist.

14 With respect to the ex-officio

15 member, as of the discussion in here to

16 some of the other groups, maybe if we do

17 get clear guidance or recommendations on

18 the ombudsman, that this is a portion

19 that can be added here to the -- to the

20 charter. That would be a good piece as

21 long as we get the clarification is

22 something we are going to move along,

23 maybe make a recommendation, explore that

24 possibility.

25 My third comment to do with local

210

1 government's participation, the states

2 and tribe are going to be working with

3 existing local entities to identify

4 issues.

5 I'm trying to think of, you know.

6 I mean there is going to be a lot of

7 stakeholder sector outreach. I view that

8 as another success for us, you know. The

9 local -- they, you know, they want to

10 maintain the fishing community. They

11 want to maintain their -- their defense

12 department in their neighborhood and that

13 would be a key issue to them.

14 I don't know how -- I mean I'm

15 trying to think of how the states would

16 do that or if -- or should be entertained

17 a little more thorough in that sector

18 outreach group.

19 MR. ATANGAN: That's the reason why

20 it's written the way it is. One of the

21 things we learned in the northeast is

22 that when you start looking at local

23 government participation there is a big

24 push for local government participation

25 and the question was, well, this local

211

1 government is not representative of this

2 local government. How to you pick and

3 choose?

4 MS. CHYTALO: Uh-uh.

5 MR. ATANGAN: I think the approach

6 can applied in the northeast now is to

7 learn some of the state agencies is

8 selecting with the local advisory groups.

9 I don't know if that's happening in the

10 Mid-Atlantic. That's an option.

11 Laura, her capacity as C.Z.M. has

12 an issue and she taps a local group

13 because it happens to apply to that. You

14 know, that other issue that that would

15 sound as an input from the local

16 government into this body you have to be

17 careful. We'll have local representation

18 and we could easily get to the point you

19 could see how difficult it is to manage

20 this group of 23, now you get into bigger

21 and bigger groups and it just becomes

22 unmanageable.

23 MS. CHYTALO: I wouldn't advocate

24 for local representation on this group,

25 but I recommend it be considered a sector

212

1 of the state group.

2 MR. ATANGAN: I understand that,

3 but again, there -- I think you would get

4 a lot of push back I think from the

5 locals themselves. There was a big

6 outcry for local participation. We have

7 not received it yet in this thing. We

8 don't have any local officials. I'm

9 sensitive what to what's happening in the

10 northeast. You have a -- or from here

11 and they were interested in getting local

12 participation in this thing. I'm trying

13 to think ahead and give flexibility to

14 operate.

15 MS. COOKSEY: When we talked about

16 local I was reminded of the G.C.C. which

17 seems to have -- I don't know what's

18 happening with that. There was a rep on

19 the G.C.C. for local and we've gone down

20 a lot. I'm wondering if -- and I have no

21 answer to my question which is why I'm

22 asking it. Does it make sense to

23 reference the G.C.C. in our charter or

24 just ignore them?

25 MR. ATANGAN: I don't know. I mean

213

1 I don't want to criticize the G.C.C. I

2 have not had any exposure to what, you

3 know -- what they've done lately. So, I

4 don't know where they would fit within

5 the structure. I'm open to if someone is

6 more knowledgeable with regard to the

7 G.C.C. and the how they can -- certainly

8 welcome the input and something we should

9 look at.

10 MS. CANTRAL: One suggestion. You

11 don't necessarily need to write it in

12 your charter, but exploring how the

13 G.C.C. could be play a role that would be

14 level helpful to you. That sounds like

15 something worth exploring.

16 MS. SCHULTZ: One of our, I think

17 our New York -- is -- and all, but George

18 Stafford from New York who is the G.C.C.

19 representative from Mid-Atlantic is also

20 the alternate from the RPB and I would

21 see an appropriate linkage having kind of

22 him carrying the message from here to the

23 G.C.C. and vice versa. I think maybe

24 that's one of the more --

25 MS. CANTRAL: Laura?

214

1 MS. McKAY: I kind of like what

2 Karen was talking about in terms of

3 looking at local governments and a

4 stakeholder sector. In fact, I feel

5 that's how we treated them in Virginia.

6 Joe was with them for the ocean kickoff

7 meeting we held in Richmond two years

8 ago. The G.C.C. -- we are lucky in that

9 we have a planning district and we rely

10 on those planning district commissions to

11 be our conduit to the 92 cities,

12 communities and towns in the coastal zone

13 that -- certainly work well in Virginia.

14 Hopefully in other states, too. To the

15 extent we have to do stakeholder

16 engagement, state by state, pulling local

17 government at the state level would be a

18 good way to make sure their concerns are

19 included.

20 MS. CANTRAL: Let me ask for

21 clarification. Sounds like what you were

22 describing is a way, could operationalize

23 the language here in the charter.

24 MR. ATANGAN: The question is

25 then -- is what I'm hearing then that

215

1 operationalized piece is an appendix or

2 operation in the charter itself?

3 MS. McKAY: Are you asking me?

4 MR. ATANGAN: Because --

5 MS. McKAY: Are you saying -- I

6 guess if we look at the language that's

7 in the charter right now says RPB will

8 provide mechanisms for meaningful local

9 government input to the regional

10 government through the state and local,

11 tribal members.

12 MR. ATANGAN: That's what I'm

13 asking. I feel like if this cover --

14 this is a broad umbrella which this will

15 fit under.

16 MS. McKAY: Yeah. If there is

17 additional detail we need to -- about how

18 we do this, is it more appropriate? Do

19 that as part of an appendix for here is

20 how we are going to engage the local

21 governments and means to do this or we go

22 to expend the local government section

23 charter to go into that --

24 MR. ATANGAN: Our preference would

25 be the latter, to go into that detail in

216

1 an appendix.

2 MS. McKAY: I'm not sure we need

3 to.

4 MR. ATANGAN: Yeah. You agree with

5 Mo, consensus.

6 MS. CANTRAL: All right. What

7 else? Anyone else have any thoughts

8 about this draft? Any input? Any advice

9 for Joe?

10 Joe, what else do you need? You've

11 got a time line of seven deadlines we are

12 trying to meet. You need to revisit that

13 too.

14 MR. ATANGAN: A lot depends on the

15 specific inputs I received so I can

16 factor into the draft. I -- you know,

17 the way I operate I prefer to set

18 deadlines. That way I can try to meet

19 those marks as opposed to -- I'm going to

20 wait until somebody gets an input and go

21 around. I think it's important since

22 this is a charter, essentially the lead

23 document which this RPB will function. I

24 think it's important to get it out sooner

25 rather than later, which is why I'm

217

1 advocating for a broad, general, very

2 flexible document that we can work with

3 and still manage to work specifics that

4 we are trying to attain.

5 So, my preference is to stick with

6 the time line and I would rather be

7 working towards that time line at this

8 point and if it's late -- but you know,

9 we can adjust that time line and folks no

10 later on -- I think there as a driver I

11 stick to that time line and urge you and

12 your alternates and public to provide

13 your inputs to me so I can factor those

14 in. I do want you to know I didn't get

15 an opportunity or fail to do so early on.

16 I certainly didn't do this by myself. I

17 want to thank the NOAA team, Darlene and

18 Caesar and Tom because they really did

19 provide comprehensive documents and

20 certainly Gwynne and Sarah have been

21 helpful. Doug and this group, as all you

22 know, this has been a team effort and we

23 wouldn't be -- I feel even though there

24 is a lot of comments and work to be done.

25 We are pretty far along when you consider

218

1 that I don't think we are supposed to be

2 here at this point until November or so.

3 We are making good progress and the

4 team effort certainly helps a lot on

5 that. I want to thank you and your

6 supporting crew for help to move this

7 charter along and I look forward to your

8 inputs and look for -- to getting this

9 next version to you out the soonest.

10 MS. CANTRAL: Thank you for walking

11 us through that and thanks for good input

12 and Joe is standing by to hear more.

13 So, at this point I ask if there is

14 any other thing? We are through our

15 agenda to the point where we -- is there

16 anything else we need to pick up before

17 we wrap up and conclude this meeting?

18 I'm asking a question and looking at the

19 32 of our co-leads looking around the

20 table. Are you ready to wrap up?

21 MR. RAMOS: There is -- comments

22 have been made over the last couple days

23 about participation and work groups set

24 aside so to bring closure to that. Can

25 we have those folks leading those groups?

219

1 Say I need two people to help me with X

2 because without that I don't see how you

3 are going to get participation.

4 MS. SCHULTZ: What I was hoping to

5 do was revisit some of the work groups to

6 see if there -- the way they are

7 currently structured, their missions are

8 still what we want and then that, because

9 I think that's key. So maybe not

10 existing work groups, but how do we

11 structure what are they working on and

12 what kinds of support do they need to

13 accomplish their perspective?

14 MR. RAMOS: I'm fine as long as we

15 have some process laid out. I don't want

16 to come back and say we did all this work

17 but only seven people helped out. That

18 ends today is what I'm trying to get at.

19 I'm not one of those seven. That's part

20 of the reason why I'm asking. I know I'm

21 not one of those seven.

22 MS. CANTRAL: So I would like to

23 put a point on that, finer point on that.

24 You have scheduled conference calls, but

25 a proposal coming from the co-leads,

220

1 putting co-leads on the spot here --

2 sorry co-leads -- about what the

3 structure should be and expectations for

4 the work groups so that people like Pedro

5 know what the leads are or -- and others

6 that have been playing a very active role

7 in the existing work groups can

8 contribute to helping understand what

9 needs are -- need to be filled.

10 So, in the absence of having that

11 discussion right now I don't think you

12 are quite ready to have, as Gwynne said,

13 needs to be conceptualizing what is this

14 next phase of the work and how to break

15 down the work and share a load and asking

16 for volunteers and signing up volunteers.

17 Okay?

18 MR. BIGFORD: I think that's a

19 really good next step. Talk about it

20 several different ways today, identify

21 the tags that need to be tackled to

22 identify staff to meet those tasks and

23 complete them and also put us in a better

24 position to decide to determine how much

25 money we need, going to C.G.G. or

221

1 departments or to whoever to get the

2 support. Good first step answering a lot

3 of questions I heard during the day. We

4 need to do it soon to get on marshaling

5 the extra people.

6 MS. CANTRAL: Let's consider that

7 the first and last of next steps and

8 summary of outcomes from this meeting.

9 It's important and it cuts across

10 everything else including accomplishments

11 you made in this meeting, which you've

12 done a lot of great work in this meeting

13 and we commend you for that.

14 Just taking a look at the

15 objectives laid out you touched and made

16 on all and made progress. I would not do

17 justice in this our trying to summarize

18 on all of the good work you did. Talk

19 about the approach process and a time

20 line for refining goals for identifying a

21 geographic focus for now with the

22 flexibility you'll need to consider as

23 things evolve. There are next steps,

24 have been identified in a very short

25 order for furthering the progression of

222

1 goals development and ready to engage

2 stakeholders starting with Greg getting

3 together just right after this meeting

4 and being ready for a discussion at the

5 next working session, the RPB which is

6 scheduled for October which is a standing

7 working group has.

8 You also talked about number of

9 ideas for regularly engaging and

10 meaningful engagement stakeholders

11 through all of the steps of the planning

12 process and in particular our support of

13 the offer made by MARCO to further

14 develop the concept they presented to

15 create a stakeholder liaison committee to

16 provide a mechanism and there are others

17 that have been suggested by stakeholders

18 today and offered around the table so the

19 suite of those activities are to be

20 further developed.

21 A good discussion about the charter

22 and identifying next steps to refine the

23 places where there was still outstanding

24 questions and you are engaged and invited

25 to continue to send your input into Joe

223

1 who has set deadlines for himself and

2 hopefully all of you to finalize that

3 over the next few weeks.

4 With regard to the MARCO data

5 portal, another offer from MARCO has met

6 with recent activity with the region

7 planning body to take advantage of the

8 tool that is -- and all of the great

9 information provided there to inform the

10 planning process.

11 Again, recognizing the evolutionary

12 nature of all of this and there is a

13 better understanding what data needs are

14 and where that is matching up and if

15 there are places where it's not what do

16 you do about that.

17 And that discussion also included

18 some concern of what you want to see in a

19 regional ocean assessment and a balancing

20 of the realistic and the capacity that's

21 available to get started on that, setting

22 it up to go -- to be something that could

23 be a living -- living document, a living

24 body of information that is closely

25 whetted is you actually what you want to

224

1 do. Another example, figure out what you

2 wouldn't do and you need the assessment

3 and that's part of the fun of this.

4 So, what did I miss?

5 Good job, guys. Thank you. Thank

6 you to all of you for sticking it out to

7 the very end with us, this group and for

8 your input and participation and I'll

9 call it a wrap. Meeting adjourned.

10 (Whereupon, the witness was

11 excused and the proceeding was

12 concluded at 4:30 p.m.)

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25